Huge Ruling: Court Says Proving Copyright Infringement Does Not Automatically Mean Irreperable Harm
from the thank-you-perfect-10 dept
We've noted in the past that Perfect 10's myriad lawsuits alleging copyright infringement against all sorts of companies haven't resulted in many victories for the company, but have established a set of case law rulings that have been very helpful in defining clear exceptions within copyright law, which have been quite useful in other cases. The only really questionable Perfect 10 ruling I can think of is the one we just mentioned earlier this week, in which a court seemed to get confused concerning the difference between direct and indirect copyright infringement, but I'm hopeful that this will get sorted out soon enough.However in a different Perfect 10 case, a part of its long and almost entirely failed campaign against Google, we have a fantastic appeals court (9th Circuit) ruling that could be quite a big deal, in reversing previous precedent and noting that a showing of copyright infringement does not automatically prove "irreparable harm," and that it also should not mean an automatic preliminary injunction is applied in such cases (thanks to Eric Goldman for pointing us to the ruling).
The ruling is significant for a number of reasons. Obviously, for a court to change its position on things, it needs a good reason to do so and, here, the court relies on the very important Supreme Court ruling in the MercExchange case, in which it noted that defaulting to a preliminary injunction in patent cases did not make sense. Instead, a court should consider a variety of factors and whether or not there was real harm that required an injunction. In this case, the court has now applied the same reasoning to copyright law for the first time. This isn't entirely surprising, since the MercExchange ruling by the Supreme Court actually relied somewhat on copyright law itself, but there had not yet been a clear ruling on whether the MercExchange decision applied to copyright. We did note, last year, that the Second Circuit appeals court had raised the question of whether or not MercExchange applied to copyright, and had sent the case back to a lower court to consider. In this case, however, we have a firm ruling (which also acknowledges that Second Circuit ruling) that MercExchange also applies to copyright:
We agree with the Second Circuit. As explained in eBay, the language of § 502(a) is permissive and evokes traditional equitable principles: “[T]he Copyright Act provides that courts ‘may’ grant injunctive relief ‘on such terms as [they] may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.’ ” 547 U.S. at 392 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 502(a)). Nothing in the statute indicates congressional intent to authorize a “major departure” from “the traditional four-factor framework that governs the award of injunctive relief,” id. at 391, 394, or to undermine the equitable principle that such relief is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that “is never awarded as of right,” Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore conclude that the propriety of injunctive relief in cases arising under the Copyright Act must be evaluated on a case-by- case basis in accord with traditional equitable principles and without the aid of presumptions or a “thumb on the scale” in favor of issuing such relief.And, more specifically, the court states directly (citations & quotation marks omitted for clarity):
In sum, we conclude that our longstanding rule that a showing of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits in a copyright infringement claim raises a presumption of irreparable harm is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning of the Court’s decision in eBay and has therefore been effectively overruled.In other words, just showing copyright infringement no longer means a presumption of irreparable harm (in the Ninth Circuit, at least). Since many of us have argued for years that infringement does not automatically lead to harm, this ruling is big news.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, injunctions, mercexchange
Companies: google, perfect 10
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PDF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more "presumption of irreparable harm"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more "presumption of irreparable harm"?
I kinda feel like anytime a court decision is decisively overruled, that's pretty big. Granted, maybe not "huge", but pretty damn big.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more "presumption of irreparable harm"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No more "presumption of irreparable harm"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really? Watch how fast concurring opinions from other districts pop up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: really? Watch how fast concurring opinions from other districts pop up
Standing [Findlaw Legal Dictionary]
Standing [Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: really? Watch how fast concurring opinions from other districts pop up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninth Circuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ninth Circuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ninth Circuit
So that's two that agree with this ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ninth Circuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ninth Circuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second Circuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what about the trolls?
What new battle cry will we hear from under the bridges of the myopic?!
The anticipation is killing me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But what about the trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
But hey, if you guys want to pretend it's HUGE, then go at it. I know how desperately you guys need a victory. Mike especially. He's been grasping at straws and strawmen so much recently, I'm happy something like this makes him feel so good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
The reason is pretty simple: The copyright law provides for a minimum and maximum amount for infringers. This would supplant the standard system, because there is an assumption of some loss, no matter what. If you are found guilty of copyright violation, there is a minimum amount. There is no choice for the judge to award 1 cent, as an example.
Given that the copyright law is written in a manner that specifically does not reference the other standards, and in fact appears to have it's own standards means that the judge very likely got it wrong, and will be overturned on appeal.
I agree that Mike is working pretty hard to find "victories" right now, considering that the strong push from the rights holders and governments in many countries are making the Tardian paradise into a potential hell. It seems quite likely that things will never be as free as they once were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
The reason is pretty simple: The copyright law provides for a minimum and maximum amount for infringers.
Presumption of harm in preliminary injunctions has nothing to do with statutory damages awarded after a guilty ruling.
the Tardian paradise
What does this blog have to do with Doctor Who?
It seems quite likely that things will never be as free as they once were.
So you're rejoicing at the loss of public freedoms. Real nice of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
Me: Copyright law has no real requirement for presumption of harm, it is a simple "did they or did they not" question, nothing more. You don't have to presume harm to get past the preliminary stages, and being a civil matter, you only would have to show reasonably that it could have happened to move forward. This court punted it badly, and they will get reversed.
You: "What does this blog have to do with Doctor Who?"
me: Nothing, Tard.
You: "So you're rejoicing at the loss of public freedoms."
me: No, I am rejoicing in the return towards balance between absolute freedom and personal rights. The only "your freedom stops at my nose" thing. The balance has been grossly distorted towards the Tardian mentality, but now it is swinging back the other way (and Mike is pissed!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
That is, of course, completely untrue. The amount of harm that is done is a factor in many different parts of copyright law (e.g. fair use, constitutional limits on damage awards, etc).
In the case of preliminary injunctions, courts have always balanced the harm between parties when deciding whether to grant the injunctions - and, furthermore, had a requirement that the injunction ultimately benefits the public good. That's why they're often not granted, even when there's a likelihood of infringement of some kind.
Nothing, Tard.
Oh, goody, you're too stupid to do anything other than make personal attacks. How lovely.
No, I am rejoicing in the return towards balance between absolute freedom and personal rights.
Copyright is not a "personal right." It is a public right. It's not there to benefit copyright holders, it's there to benefit the general public. If the general public does not benefit from it, they can change it or eliminate it at will - unlike, say, anything in the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps instead of cheering on the loss of public freedom, you should thank the public (including the "freetards") for allowing you to have your copyright in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
The reason that statutory damages were written into the law was that it is often difficult to prove exact actual damages. But, even statutory damages assume that some actual damage was done.
The current ruling of the 9th Circuit might mean that a defendant can show that if no real damage was done to the plaintiff, then no damage award is required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
Please hold off on the education until you get some for yourself. The only thing worse than someone who spreads wrong information is someone who does it with conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what about the trolls?
Is there any law in the books that specifically creates its own standard in some area and consequently "references" every other possible standard which will apply?
The Court appears to disagree, and I think they point to "may .. on such terms as it may deem reasonable".
"We agree with the Second Circuit. As explained in eBay, the language of § 502(a) is permissive and evokes traditional equitable principles..."
You will probably have to argue a little better (with more specifics) that the "traditional four-factor framework" does not apply for copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]