Why We Filed An Amicus Brief In Garcia v. Google: Blaming 3rd Parties Has Serious Impact On Free Speech
from the not-just-about-copyright dept
Monday was the deadline for amici briefs over whether or not the 9th Circuit should rehear, en banc, the Garcia v. Google debacle, in which Alex Kozinski made a bunch of highly questionable decisions in ruling that actress Cindy Lee Garcia deserves a copyright in her 5-second performance shown in the controversial 13-minute "trailer" known as Innocence of Muslims. The 9th Circuit made it clear that it would welcome briefs from anyone who wanted to file them, and a bunch of organizations and companies have been lining up to do so. You can see the full list of briefs here, though at the time I write this, it's still being updated. If I get the chance I'll try to review some of the other briefs soon. However, I wanted to write about one such brief first: ours.After some consideration, we teamed up with the Organization for Transformative Works to file our own brief concerning "intermediary liability." While the 9th Circuit noted it would accept briefs from all interested parties, it also said those briefs had to be shorter than 2,500 words, which is not a lot of space to make complex legal arguments. We fully expected many others to focus in on all of the (many, many) troubling copyright aspects in Kozinski's ruling, but wanted to raise a separate (and, in some ways, larger) issue that was almost entirely ignored by the ruling: that third parties should not be blamed for the actions of their users -- and that Judge Kozinski's broad injunction did just that.
Lawyer Cathy Gellis wrote up an amicus brief on our behalf, highlighting Congress's clear intent in both Sections 230 of the CDA and 512 of the DMCA in providing safe harbors from liability for third parties, in order to encourage them to support free and open dialogue and discourse online, without fear of legal repercussions. As our brief argues, while many have ignored Section 230 (which excludes intellectual property), it should be quite clear that Garcia's case was really nothing more than an attempt to misuse copyright law in order to get around Section 230 and to hold a third party liable. Furthermore, as we've noted in the past, Judge Kozinski's injunction appears to go well beyond what the law says is appropriate in responding to copyright claims.
There is a reason why Congress was so intent on providing safe harbors, recognizing the incentives for broad censorship when you blame service providers for the actions of their users. Judge Kozinski appears to have ignored nearly all of Congress' intent in his ruling, and we're hopeful that (among the many other reasons why his ruling should be reviewed), the rest of the 9th Circuit will recognize that the original ruling has serious First Amendment implications, beyond just the basic copyright questions.
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: amicus brief, cda, cindy garcia, cindy lee garcia, copyright, dmca, free speech, innocence of muslims, intermediary liability, safe harbors, section 230, third party liability
Companies: floor64, google, organization for transformative works, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Go, Gellis!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ms. Garcia's situation seriously, and balanced her intellectual property interests and her interest in her life
and safety over Google's business interests. "
My point was she has no intellectual property interests in this case, but I was apparently misunderstood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Judge wasn't going to reverse his ruling when they filed the inital motion after the verdict, and I highly doubt the appeals court hearing Google's appeal is going to let it stand.
The absurdity of this ruling will hit home, and this will be struck. One could only imagine the damage this ruling would do if it was left to stand. You would have hundreds if not thousands of Garcia type cases flooding the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In a sick and twisted way I *want* it to stand, for exactly that reason.
This would brake copyright so badly, especially for the maximalists, that a proper copyright reform that actually does something would become inevitable. And if a real reform has to happen, there is a better than zero chance to actually fix copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In a sick and twisted way I *want* it to stand, for exactly that reason.
This would brake copyright so badly, especially for the maximalists, that a proper copyright reform that actually does something would become inevitable. And if a real reform has to happen, there is a better than zero chance to actually fix copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would have agreed originally... but they got circuit court judges to agree with them. These aren't just ordinary appeals court judges; the only judges higher are on the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court may well decide to not take the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If, as has happened numerous times, the SC itself made the mistake, then it's a little trickier -- the SC has to admit the mistake and reverse itself. This doesn't often happen while the same judges are sitting on the court, but it does happen that a later court overturns a prior court's ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"so intent"?
I wasn't there when the DMCA managed to get through, but given what I've been seeing about Congress recently, it seems to me to be equally likely that they were just "so intent" on pushing something through, so they could continue to collect big campaign contributions from certain lobbyists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case, all the credit needs to go to Cathy Gellis. Check out her blog: http://www.digitalagedefense.org/wp/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Unhelpful Hartline
http://lawtheories.com/?p=1058
Unsurprisingly, it is both dismissive and dishonest.
FYI, I suspect that Hartline is none other than notorious Techdirt troll Average Joe. Of course, I don't know this for sure, and if it's not true, I owe Hartline an apology for even suggesting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An Unhelpful Hartline
After checking out Hartline's blog, I have to agree with you on that. The arguments concerning Aereo and others are almost word for word the same ones AJ has made. Hartline's personal information also lines up with the personal detail crumbs that AJ let slip over the years too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting...
I looked at each of the Brief Of Amici Curiae that were filled in this case, its interesting to note not only the vast number people and organizations that signed their names to these briefs, but the fact that every single one is in favor of Google / You Tube.
Its amazing how a judge can make a decision that is so wrong and receive such a public backlash and still stand behind his decision, its as though he thinks that decision is supported by written law, which it clearly isnt.
its decisions like this why I think there needs to be a more comprehensive review of judges mental status and ability to perform their duties. Because in my view after seeing the ruling, its entirely possible that this judge blew a gasket or fouled a couple spark plugs and isnt running on all cylinders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]