DMCA – Attorney Evan Brown

May 22, 2024 Copyright, DMCA

Artist’s side hustle lands him in DMCA litigation with autonomous vehicle company

A dispute between a digital artist and his former employer over content rights resulted in a court allowing the employee’s DMCA claim while striking the employee’s state law claims.

For over five years, plaintiff worked for defendant, crafting digital street scenes of San Francisco to train the company’s self-driving vehicles. But plaintiff’s passion for digital art extended beyond his day job. So, in his spare time, using his own equipment, he created intricate urban scenery for video games, which he then sold on the Epic Games marketplace.

When defendant learned of plaintiff’s side hustle, it claimed plaintiff’s project infringed defendant’s copyright rights. It demanded that plaintiff cease all sales of his digital art. Plaintiff refused to comply. He argued that his creations were made on his own time, with his own resources, and did not utilize any proprietary information from defendant.

Defendant considered plaintiff’s refusal as a resignation and terminated his employment. But that did not end the matter. Defendant escalated the situation by sending a takedown notice to Epic Games under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), alleging that plaintiff’s content infringed on defendant’s copyrighted material. This resulted in Epic removing plaintiff’s content from its marketplace.

The lawsuit

Plaintiff sued, claiming that that defendant sent the takedown notice in bad faith, asserting federal claims under the DMCA and state law claims for interference with contractual relations, interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Defendant moved to dismiss the DMCA claim and also moved to strike the state law claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which aims to prevent lawsuits that chill the exercise of free speech.

The court’s decision

The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the DMCA claim, allowing plaintiff’s federal claim to proceed. It found that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that defendant acted in bad faith when it issued the takedown notice, a key requirement under Section 512(f) of the DMCA. But the court granted defendant’s motion to strike the state law claims. It held that the state law claims were preempted by the DMCA and were also barred by California’s litigation privilege, which protects communications made in anticipation of litigation.

Shande v. Zoox, Inc., 2024 WL 2306284 (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2024)

March 12, 2024 Copyright, DMCA

X avoids much of music industry copyright lawsuit

Plaintiffs sued X for copyright infringement arising from X’s users uploading tweets that contained copyright-protected music. Plaintiffs accused X of “trying to generate the kind of revenue that one would expect as a lawful purveyor of music and other media, without incurring the cost of actually paying for the licenses.” For example, plaintiffs highlighted a feature within the X platform whereby one could seek out tweets that include audiovisual media. And they pointed out infringing content surrounded by “promoted” content on the platform that generated revenue for X. The parties disputed the extent to which X actively encouraged infringing conduct. Plaintiffs sent many DMCA takedown notices to X but complained that the company took too long to respond to those notices. And plaintiffs asserted that X did not have an appropriate procedure in place to terminate users engaged in repeated acts of copyright infringement.

The complaint alleged three counts – direct, contributory and vicarious infringement. X moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion for the most part, except as to certain practices concerning contributory liability, namely, being more lenient to verified users, failing to act quickly concerning DMCA takedown notices, and failing to take steps to in response to severe serial infringers.

No direct infringement liability

The court found that plaintiffs had not successfully alleged direct infringement liability because their claims did not align with the required notion of “transmission” as defined in the Copyright Act and interpreted in the Supreme Court case of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 US 431 (2014). The court distinguished X’s actions from the defendant in the Aereo case by noting that X merely provided the platform for third-party transmissions, rather than actively participating in the transmission of copyrighted material. Therefore, the court concluded that X’s role was more akin to a passive carrier, similar to a telegraph system or telephone company, making its actions more suitable for consideration under theories of secondary liability rather than direct infringement.

Some possible contributory liability

The court found that certain portions of plaintiffs’ claims for contributory infringement liability survived because they plausibly alleged that X engaged in actions that could materially contribute to infringement on the X platform. These actions included failing to promptly respond to valid takedown notices, allowing users to pay for less stringent copyright policy enforcement, and not taking meaningful steps against severe serial infringers. Consequently, the court dismissed the broader claim of general liability across the X platform but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims related to these specific practices.

No vicarious liability

Finally, the court determined that plaintiffs had not successfully pled vicarious liability for copyright infringement because their allegations did not establish that X had the requisite level of control over the infringing activities on X. The court found that simply providing a service that users might exploit for infringement did not equate to the direct control or supervisory capacity typically required for vicarious liability, as seen in traditional employer-employee or principal-agent relationships. Consequently, the court rejected the application of vicarious liability in this context, emphasizing that contributory infringement, rather than vicarious liability, was the more appropriate legal framework for the plaintiffs’ claims.

Concord Music Group, Inc. v. X Corp., 2024 WL 945325 (M.D. Tenn. March 5, 2024)

See also:

March 11, 2024 Copyright, DMCA

Print-on-demand platform avoids liability for illustrator’s copyright claims

Plaintiff illustrator (known for his works involving fish) sued defendant print-on-demand online platform operators for copyright infringement. Defendants’ platform enabled third parties to upload designs that could be printed on items such as t-shirts, mugs and tumblers. Plaintiff alleged that four of his works had been uploaded to the platform and had been printed on goods without plaintiff’s authorization.

Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that defendants were neither directly nor secondarily liable for any alleged infringement. The magistrate judge submitted a report and recommendation that the matter be dismissed. Plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court overruled the objections and granted the motion to dismiss.

No liability for direct copyright infringement

The court examined the question of defendants’ alleged volitional conduct and its relation to a claim for direct liability for infringement. The magistrate judge had found that plaintiff failed to adequately allege that defendants had engaged in volitional conduct required to pin liability on defendants for infringements occasioned by defendants’ platform’s third party users. The court agreed that an allegation that defendants merely displayed plaintiff’s copyright-protected works did not plausibly suggest that defendants knew the work was protected by copyright. Moreover, plaintiff did not, for example, allege that defendants designed, manufactured or even selected the products on their website.

No liability for secondary copyright infringement

As for secondary liability for copyright infringement, plaintiff had objected to the magistrate judge’s determination of the question at the motion to dismiss stage. But the court rejected this objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court agreed with the magistrate judge’s determination that plaintiff failed to state a valid contributory infringement claim because he did not allege that defendants induced the third-party infringers; and he failed to state a valid secondary liability claim because he did not allege defendants “declined” to stop or limit third parties from infringing. It appears plaintiff sought to limit any application of these secondary liability elements to questions arising under the safe harbors of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). But the court found that plaintiff conflated the DMCA and general theories of copyright infringement liability.

Tomelleri v. Sunfrog, LLC, 2024 WL 940238 (E.D. Michigan, March 5, 2024)

See also:

March 7, 2024 Copyright, DMCA

Game developer prevails in action over bogus DMCA takedown notices

DMCA good faith

Defendant posted some videos on YouTube about the game Destiny 2. The videos stayed online for eight years with no issues until Bungie, the game’s developer and publisher sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) takedown notice to YouTube because defendant’s video violated Bungie’s intellectual property policy. This policy encouraged Destiny 2 enthusiasts to create and post Destiny 2 content so long as the content conformed with the policy. Defendant felt wronged by Bungie’s DMCA takedown notice and, seeking to highlight flaws in the DMCA takedown process, posed as a Bungie employee and submitted 96 fraudulent takedown requests targeting other Destiny 2 content, including videos on Bungie’s own channel.

Bungie sued under Section 512(f) of the DMCA which provides that one may be liable for sending any takedown notification that knowingly materially misrepresents that complained of material is infringing. To be liable, a defendant must lack a subjective, good faith belief that the material targeted by the takedown notification is infringing. Bungie moved for summary judgment on its own claim and defendant did not oppose the motion, even though he had sat for a deposition and otherwise participated in the litigation. The court granted the summary judgment motion in favor of Bungie.

In his deposition, defendant had admitted he was “oblivious to the reprehensible damages [he] was causing to the community” and Bungie in issuing the fraudulent takedown notices, and that he caused financial and emotional damage to several Destiny 2 fans whose videos were subject to the fraudulent takedown notices he had sent. The court determined that defendant lacked a good faith belief in the infringing nature of the content, which supported his liability under the statute. Bungie demonstrated that the material did not infringe its intellectual property policy and that defendant had no authority to issue the DMCA notices. As a result of defendant’s actions, Bungie faced reputational damage and incurred significant costs in addressing the issue. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Bungie, recognizing the intentional nature of defendant’s violations and the resultant harm to Bungie.

Bungie, Inc. v. Minor, 2024 WL 965010 (W.D. Washington, March 6, 2024)

February 13, 2024 Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, DMCA

GenAI and copyright: Court dismisses almost all claims against OpenAI in authors’ suit

Plaintiff authors sued large language model provider OpenAI and related entities for copyright infringement, alleging that plaintiffs’ books were used to train ChatGPT. Plaintiffs asserted six causes of action against various OpenAI entities: (1) direct copyright infringement, (2) vicarious infringement, (3) violation of Section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), (4) unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, (5) negligence, and (6) unjust enrichment.

Open AI moved to dismiss all of these claims except for the direct copyright infringement claim. The court granted the motion as to almost all the claims.

Vicarious liability claim dismissed

The court dismissed the claim for vicarious liability because plaintiffs did not successfully plead that direct copying occurs from use of the software. Citing to A&M Recs., Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) aff’d, 284 F.3d 1091 (2002) the court noted that “[s]econdary liability for copyright infringement does not exist in the absence of direct infringement by a third party.” More specifically, the court dismissed the claim because plaintiffs had not alleged either direct copying when the outputs are generated, nor had they alleged “substantial similarity” between the ChatGPT outputs and plaintiffs’ works.

DMCA claims dismissed

The DMCA – at 17 U.S.C. 1202(b) – requires a defendant’s knowledge or “reasonable grounds to know” that the defendant’s removal of copyright management information (“CMI”) would “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement.” Plaintiffs alleged “by design,” OpenAI removed CMI from the copyrighted books during the training process. But the court found that plaintiffs provided no factual support for that assertion. Moreover, the court found that even if plaintiffs had successfully asserted such facts, they had not provided any facts showing how the omitted CMI would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement.

The other portion of the DMCA relevant to the lawsuit – Section 1202(b)(3) – prohibits the distribution of a plaintiff’s work without the plaintiff’s CMI included. In rejecting plaintiff’s assertions that defendants violated this provision, the court looked to the plain language of the statute. It noted that liability requires distributing the original “works” or “copies of [the] works.” Plaintiffs had not alleged that defendants distributed their books or copies of their books. Instead, they alleged that “every output from the OpenAI Language Models is an infringing derivative work” without providing any indication as to what such outputs entail – i.e., whether they were the copyrighted books or copies of the books.

Unfair competition claim survived

Plaintiffs asserted that defendants had violated California’s unfair competition statute based on “unlawful,” “fraudulent,” and “unfair” practices. As for the unlawful and fraudulent practices, these relied on the DMCA claims, which the court had already dismissed. So the unfair competition theory could not move forward on those grounds. But the court did find that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to support the claim that it was “unfair” to use plaintiffs works without compensation to train the ChatGPT model.

Negligence claim dismissed

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants owed them a duty of care based on the control of plaintiffs’ information in their possession and breached their duty by “negligently, carelessly, and recklessly collecting, maintaining, and controlling systems – including ChatGPT – which are trained on Plaintiffs’ [copyrighted] works.” The court dismissed this claim, finding that there were insufficient facts showing that defendants owed plaintiffs a duty in this situation.

Unjust enrichment claim dismissed

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were unjustly enriched by using plaintiffs’ copyright protected works to train the large language model. The court dismissed this claim because plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts to show that plaintiffs had conferred any benefit onto OpenAI through “mistake, fraud, or coercion.”

Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., 2024 WL 557720 (N.D. Cal., February 12, 2024)

DMCA subpoena to “mere conduit” ISP was improper

DMCA defamatory

Because ISP acted as a conduit for the transmission of material that allegedly infringed copyright, it fell under the DMCA safe harbor in 17 U.S.C. § 512(a), and therefore § 512(h) did not authorize the subpoena issued in the case.

Some copyright owners needed to find out who was anonymously infringing their works, so they issued a subpoena to the users’ internet service provider (Cox Communications) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (“DMCA”) at 17 U.S.C. § 512(h). After the ISP notified one of the anonymous users – referred to as John Doe in the case – of the subpoena, Doe filed a motion to quash. The magistrate judge recommended the subpoena be quashed, and the district judge accepted such recommendation.

Contours of the Safe Harbor

The court explained how the DMCA enables copyright owners to send subpoenas for the identification of alleged infringers, contingent upon providing a notification that meets specific criteria outlined in the DMCA. However, the DMCA also establishes safe harbors for Internet Service Providers (ISPs), notably exempting those acting as “mere conduits” of information, like in peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing, from liability and thus from the obligations of the notice and takedown provisions found in other parts of the DMCA. This distinction has led courts, including the Eighth and D.C. Circuits, to conclude that subpoenas under § 512(h) cannot be used to compel ISPs, which do not store or directly handle the infringing material but merely transmit it, to reveal the identities of P2P infringers.

Who is in?

The copyright owners raised a number of objections to quashing the subpoena. Their primary concerns were with the court’s interpretation of the ISP’s role as merely a “conduit” in the alleged infringement, arguing that the ISP’s assignment of IP addresses constituted a form of linking to infringing material, thus meeting the DMCA’s notice requirements. They also disputed the court’s conclusion that the material in question could not be removed or access disabled by the ISP due to its nature of transmission, and they took issue with certain factual conclusions drawn without input from the parties involved. Additionally, the petitioners objected to the directive to return or destroy any information obtained through the subpoena, requesting that such measures apply only to the information related to the specific subscriber John Doe.

Conduits are.

Notwithstanding these various arguments, the court upheld the magistrate judge’s recommendation, agreeing that the subpoena issued to the ISP was invalid due to non-compliance with the notice provisions required by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A). The petitioners’ arguments, suggesting that the ISP’s assignment of IP addresses to users constituted a form of linking to infringing material under § 512(d), were rejected. The court clarified that in the context of P2P file sharing, IP addresses do not serve as “information location tools” as defined under § 512(d) and that the ISP’s role was limited to providing internet connectivity, aligning with the “mere conduit” provision under § 512(a). The court also dismissed the petitioners’ suggestion that the ISP could disable access to infringing material by null routing, emphasizing the distinction between disabling access to material and terminating a subscriber’s account, with the latter being a more severe action than what the DMCA authorizes. The court suggested that the petitioners could pursue the infringer’s identity through other legal avenues, such as a John Doe lawsuit, despite potential challenges highlighted by the petitioners.

In re: Subpoena of Internet Subscribers of Cox Communications, LLC and Coxcom LLC, 2024 WL 341069 (D. Hawaii, January 30, 2024)

January 4, 2024 Copyright, DMCA, Trademarks, Unfair Competition

cPanel gets injunction to shut down sophisticated counterfeiting enterprise

The purveyor of cPanel – the well-known hosting automation software – has successfully obtained an injunction against an overseas enterprise accused of engaging in an elaborate scheme to sell unauthorized access to the cPanel software. A federal court in Oregon has issued a wide-ranging injunction against the defendants’ unauthorized activities.

The sophistication of defendants’ actions

Plaintiff’s evidence showed that defendants – under the brand “Licenseman” – changed the cPanel software in several ways. Defendants allegedly made it so that any requests for licensing or technical help from cPanel went to Licenseman’s servers instead. The modified software hid messages about trial licenses expiring and would delete itself if cPanel’s tech team tried to access a server with this altered software. The changes involved “wrapped binaries” in the software, which tricked the system into using licenses meant for other cPanel systems. This meant many people could use the same cPanel license illegally.

cPanel’s legal claims

cPanel sued for:

copyright infringement;
the trafficking of circumvention devices in violation of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2);
trademark infringement and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, 1125(a);
trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; and
cybersquatting under ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

cPanel asked the court to enter a preliminary injunction to stop the unlawful activity. The court granted the motion. In reaching its decision, it found that plaintiff was likely to succeed on all five of its claims, in light of the overwhelming evidence indicating that defendants were behind the actions of the Licenseman entity.

The court’s decision

On the copyright infringement claim, the court found that plaintiffs had shown ownership of the allegedly infringed material by presenting evidence of its registered copyright claims. Plaintiffs presented evidence that defendants had infringed on plaintiff’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works of the software by altering cPanel software to permit access via illicit licenses.

As for the DMCA circumvention claim, the court found that defendants sold re-engineered, illicit cPanel licenses that, as advertised, manipulated the binary of the cPanel software so that people could use the cPanel software without purchasing a subscription from plaintiff. And defendants trafficked—that is, sold—such licenses via their websites. Thus, every element of DMCA trafficking liability had been met.

Concerning trademark infringement and unfair competition, the court likewise found that plaintiff had established a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Plaintiff submitted evidence that it owns a registration for the CPANEL mark, which served as prima facie evidence of exclusive rights to use the mark. And defendant’s actions were “highly” likely to confuse customers. The fact that illicit license users had sought plaintiff’s customer service suggested that users had actually been confused and not exercised a great deal of care in pursuing cPanel licenses.

Finding that plaintiff had shown likelihood of success on its counterfeiting claim, the court noted that plaintiff’s CPANEL mark identifies computer software facilitating the management and configuration of internet web servers, and defendants were using that exact mark to sell illicit licenses to plaintiff’s software.

Finally, on the cybersquatting claim, the court found plaintiffs to be likely to succeed on the merits where the disputed domain names incorporated the CPANEL mark and were used to sell infringing items “which itself prove[d] bad faith.”

Because plaintiff also showed irreparable harm from the alleged activity, that defendants’ loss of business if enjoined was not an unfair tipping of the equities, and that the public interest would benefit from the prohibition of the alleged conduct, the court granted the injunction.

cPanel, LLC v. Asli, 2024 WL 35674 (D.Or. January 3, 2024)

NB: Great work on the case by Venkat and team.

No knowledge of infringement, no secondary copyright liability for YouTube

This case underscores that platforms like YouTube, when promptly addressing DMCA takedown notices, are not necessarily held liable for user-uploaded content that infringes copyright.

Plaintiff sued defendant YouTube accusing it of secondary copyright infringement liability — that YouTube was contributorily and vicariously liable for infringement concerning three videos that nonparty TV-Novosti (operator of various RT channels, including RT Arabic) posted on YouTube. These videos contained content from documentary videos plaintiff had created and for which it owned the copyright.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which the court denied. That court had determined that the proposed amendments would be futile. Plaintiff sought review with the Second Circuit, arguing it had sufficiently alleged YouTube’s liability under theories of contributory and vicarious liability. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend.

The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that YouTube was liable for infringement by failing to delete TV-Novosti’s entire YouTube account. Plaintiff’s argument apparently went something like this: “We made YouTube aware of the infringement by sending a DMCA takedown notice. Though YouTube took down the videos (which it did not catch in its copyright-detection technology) once it found out about them, by continuing to provide the platform for this infringer, YouTube took on liability for the infringement.”

The court held that it agreed with the lower court’s denial of the motion for leave to amend. “[B]ecause YouTube promptly and permanently removed the [allegedly infringing videos] from its platform once it received the plaintiff’s DMCA notices, the Amended Complaint does not permit an inference that YouTube acted in concert with TV-Novosti.”

Business Casual Holdings, LLC v. YouTube, LLC, 2023 WL 6842449 (2d Cir., October 17, 2023)

Can you sue a platform for not following DMCA takedown procedures?

platform DMCA takedown

Plaintiff sued YouTube after the platform took down one of plaintiff’s videos in response to a DMCA takedown notice. She claimed YouTube failed to follow the procedures in 17 U.S.C. §512 by, for example, not providing her with a physical signature of the copyright owner and otherwise not following the “exact course of the DMCA guidelines.” YouTube moved to dismiss and the court granted the motion.

It held that §512 serves to provide safe harbor protections from copyright infringement liability to platforms. Section 512 does not, however, give rise to a standalone basis to sue a platform.

When a copyright owner sends a DMCA takedown notice to a platform, it must include substantially the following:

A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

If the notification does not include substantially these items, then if the platform leaves the content up, the insufficient notification will not be considered to have placed the platform on notice of the alleged infringing activity. So if the copyright holder sues the platform for copyright infringement, it will have to plead other facts showing that the platform is liable for infringement. Relatedly, if the platform acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to allegedly infringing content when it gets knowledge via a valid takedown notice, it will have an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement.

In this case, the court confirmed the notion that the DMCA provides this safe harbor to the platform but does not give the person whose content has been taken down the right to sue the platform. The court does not mention – but it remains relevant – that one whose content has been taken down can seek a remedy under 17 U.S.C. §512(f) against a party who sends a takedown notice while knowingly materially misrepresenting that the content is infringing. But that is not the course plaintiff in this case took – she sued YouTube for not following the requirements that apply to copyright holders. And she lost.

Finley v. YouTube, 2022 WL 704835 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2022)

DMCA anticircumvention case over copied YouTube videos moves forward

Defendant fired plaintiff over two videos advocating for COVID-19 workplace protections that plaintiff posted on YouTube. Around the time of the termination, the employer allegedly used a smartphone to record the videos in question while they were being played on a computer screen. Defendant then allegedly further copied, distributed and performed these videos in connection with legal proceedings involving plaintiff, without plaintiff’s consent.

DMCA anticircumvention

Plaintiff sued his former employer for copyright infringement. And because YouTube technology provides technological protection measures to prevent unauthorized copying of videos, plaintiff sued under Section 1201 of the Copyright Act – one of the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).

No fair use (yet)

Defendant argued its conduct was fair use of the videos. It asserted it submitted the videos in response to plaintiff’s OSHA complaint and in support of a no-trespass order. But the court refused to make a fair use determination at the motion to dismiss stage, since no facts supporting fair use could be found in the complaint.

DMCA circumvention

The court also allowed plaintiff’s DMCA circumvention claim to move forward.

Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA states “[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].” “Circumvent,” as used in §1201, “means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner[.]” §1201(a)(3)(A). “[A] technological measure ‘effectively controls access to a work’ if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.” §1201(a)(3)(B).

Defendant argued the court should throw out the DMCA circumvention claim because plaintiff did not identify a specific technological measure that defendant allegedly circumvented. The court rejected that argument, however, saying that that much specificity was not required to survive a motion to dismiss.

Defendant also argued the DMCA claim should fail because the statute prohibits “circumvention,” which is different from copying, and the complained-of conduct was simply copying. The court viewed the law differently, however, citing Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004), where the court held that while infringement and circumvention are distinct, an act of infringement can also involve an act of an authorized circumvention.

The facts of this case may cause one to consider cases such as R. Christopher Goodwin & Assoc., Inc. v. Search, Inc., 2019 WL 5576834 (E.D. Louisiana October 29, 2019) and wonder whether circumvention has really occurred. It does not appear defendant in this case did anything to disable measures that would have prevented it from viewing the videos. Presumably the streamed videos were available to anyone who could visit YouTube. And the act of creating the copies did not even touch on any of the protection measures YouTube put in place. There was no cracking or descrambling – just the capturing of video as it passed through the air (at that moment being analog) from the computer screen to the camera of the smart phone. Perhaps there is an analog hole defense here?

Edland v. Basin Electric Power Cooperative, 2021 WL 3080225 (D.S.D. July 21, 2021)