Perfect 10 Loses Yet Another Copyright Lawsuit, Once Again Losing To Giganews
from the keep-setting-good-precedents dept
As we've noted in the past, Perfect 10 appears to be a company who's entire reason for being is to set good precedents in copyright law, by filing ridiculous lawsuits and losing. So many important copyright precedents have come out of Perfect 10 cases, including ones on fair use and secondary liability. Some have argued (with fairly detailed explanations) how Perfect 10 is not a porn publisher at all, but rather a pure copyright troll that makes a living off of suing. While it seems to always lose in court, the problem is that some companies just pay up rather than fight. Back in 2011, we noted that Perfect 10 had sued Usenet provider Giganews. Earlier this year, the court smacked down Perfect 10 on a number of issues. And now, the court has done so again, handing a complete and total victory to Giganews.First up, the claims of direct copyright infringement. Since Giganews is an intermediary, no luck there. The judge, not surprisingly, relies heavily on the famous Netcom case, which said that a bulletin board/usenet system isn't liable for "incidental copies" made automatically by the computers as part of an effort done by a third party. Here, the court notes that nothing in what Giganews does makes it directly liable. Furthermore, the judge notes that, as is all too typical of Perfect 10, even though its arguments had been rejected earlier in court, the company just repeated the same wrong argument again this time. Not surprisingly, it didn't work. The company then tried a new theory, and it didn't work either, because it just turned into Perfect 10 repeating the same already rejected arguments:
Turning to the undisputed evidence before the Court, Defendants have met their burden to establish that Perfect 10 cannot prove causation for direct infringement as a matter of law. Indeed, on identical facts (then presented as allegations, now with evidence), Judge Matz and Judge Collins already so held....Okay, moving on to the question of indirect infringement. Once again, Perfect 10's argument is a complete and total flop. The court recognizes an important distinction that is almost always ignored by copyright maximalists looking to blame any platform that has some copyright infringement happening on its platforms: that you have to show that the platform is getting a benefit from that specific infringement, not from "people using the service in general for infringement." Perfect 10, not surprisingly, fails to persuade the court here:
[....]
Again, a claim for direct liability requires evidence that the Defendants directly or actively caused the infringement. Perfect 10’s continued insistence that Defendants allowed its subscribers to upload, download, and view infringing material is the stuff of indirect or secondary liability, not direct liability.
Four months after Judge Matz rejected each of the arguments Perfect 10 advances in opposition to this motion, Judge Collins reaffirmed that the evidence before the Court does not support a claim for direct infringement as a matter of law.... Faced with the same allegations discussed above and now set forth in the evidence before the Court, Judge Collins again held that such allegations were insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of direct infringement because such facts fail to support a finding of direct causation.... However, Judge Collins permitted Perfect 10’s claim for direct infringement against Giganews to proceed solely on the newly alleged theory that Giganews “plac[ed] copies of copyrighted material from various internet locations onto its own servers, and not at the request of customers ... .” ...Judge Collins expressly rejected each of Perfect 10’s other theories of direct liability.
Although Perfect 10 repeats the arguments Judge Matz and Judge Collins already rejected, the record is devoid of any evidence to support the only theory of direct liability as to Giganews that survived the pleading stage. In the operative First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged on information and belief that Giganews itself, by way of its employees, had uploaded infringing Perfect 10 images to the Usenet generally or Giganews’ servers specifically.... Though Judge Collins noted this was “not the strongest set of allegations,” Judge Collins held that it was at least sufficiently plausible to pass the pleading stage in light of the fact that another website, megaupload.com, had previously been found in criminal proceedings to have uploaded massive quantities of copyrighted materials to its own servers. ... After considerable discovery, there is simply no evidence to bear out that unlikely allegation.
Rather than point to any evidence that Giganews’ employees or agents themselves uploaded, downloaded, otherwise copied, displayed, or modified any work to which Perfect 10 holds a copyright, Perfect 10 rehashes arguments already considered and rejected. Namely, Perfect 10 once again argues that Giganews personally violated Perfect 10’s copyrights by allowing users to upload content to its servers and by obtaining and sending content to other Usenet servers through the peering process. But the conduct of third party Usenet subscribers does not support a claim of direct liability as to Giganews. The conduct of third parties is relevant, if at all, to a claim of secondary infringement (contributory or vicarious), not direct infringement. And Perfect 10 fails to articulate any meaningful difference between the evidence before the Court and its allegations that Giganews “program[s] [its] servers to distribute and download infringing conduct” and that Giganews “control[s] which materials are distributed to and copied from other third party servers,” which Judge Matz held insufficient as a matter of law to support a claim of direct infringement.
Although the scope “draw” need not be substantial, Perfect 10 must still prove a direct causal link between the infringing activities at issue in this case and a direct financial benefit to Giganews. This action is a specific lawsuit by a specific plaintiff against a specific defendant about specific copyrighted images; it is not a lawsuit against copyright infringement in general on the Usenet. That is to say, the “direct financial benefit” requirement demands more than evidence that customers were “drawn” to Giganews to obtain access to infringing material in general. Perfect 10 must prove with competent evidence that at least some of Giganews’ customers were “drawn” to Giganews’ services, in part, to obtain access to infringing Perfect 10 material. Despite extensive discovery (which is now closed) the record lacks (and Perfect 10 does not identify) a single piece of evidence to that effect. Even if the scope of causation is expanded to the broader category of erotic images, there is no evidence that any customer was ever “drawn” to Giganews’ Usenet offerings to obtain access to erotic images. “There is no evidence that indicates that [Giganews’] customers either subscribed because of the available infringing [Perfect 10] material or canceled subscriptions because it was no longer available. While a causal relationship might exist between [Giganews’] profits from subscriptions and the infringing activity taking place on its USENET servers, [Perfect 10] has not offered enough evidence for a reasonable juror so to conclude.”Also, here's a tip: don't misrepresent the rulings of other judges in your case. Courts don't fall for it, and they don't like it:
Instead, Perfect 10 points to evidence that there is a lot of copyrighted material on the Usenet and concludes that the availability of copyrighted material in general constitutes a draw. If anything, however, Perfect 10’s evidence that the Usenet is awash in copyrighted material only supports the conclusion no reasonable juror could find a direct causal connection between infringing Perfect 10 content and Giganews’ profits. For example, if as Perfect 10 asserts, “staggering amounts of copyrighted works owned by move producers and television networks are available” on Giganews’ servers ..., what evidence is there that any Giganews subscriber purchased Giganews’ services in part because of the relatively miniscule number of Perfect 10 images available on Giganews’ servers? In short, there is none. But if the universe of infringing material on the Usenet is as broad and diverse as Perfect 10 suggests, any conclusion that subscribers were “drawn” to Giganews’ services as a result of the availability of Perfect 10 content would be pure speculation. Speculation is not evidence of causation.
Perfect 10 also argues that Judge Matz and Judge Collins “have already ruled that the monthly fee charged by Giganews to its users to access allegedly infringing material constituted a direct financial benefit.” ... Neither Judge Matz nor Judge Collins so held. In his order on Defendants’ first motion to dismiss, Judge Matz emphasized the importance of the procedural posture of the in holding that Perfect 10 had adequately alleged a claim for vicarious infringement.... Indeed, Judge Matz distinguished the motion to dismiss from Ellison v. Robertson, supra, and Netcom, supra, both of which involved summary judgment after an ample opportunity for discovery.... In fact, Judge Matz correctly observed that the operative question is whether there is a “causal relationship” between Perfect 10’s infringing content and Giganews’ subscription revenues.... Judge Collins adopted Judge Matz’ analysis and found that the same allegations were sufficient to advance the action past the pleadings stage. However, after full discovery, the evidence does not bear out Perfect 10’s allegations that the availability of its copyrighted content is a draw for Giganews’ customers, and summary judgment in Giganews’ favor is consistent with Judge Matz’ and Judge Collins’ liberal assessment of the sufficiency of the pleadings.The court also (as others have before) notes that Perfect 10 seems to prefer sending confusing and incomplete DMCA notices that are not valid under the law. In fact, they often appear to be designed on purpose to make it difficult to comply, thus giving the company a reason to file a lawsuit. In this case, this harms Perfect 10 because it takes away any claim of Giganews having actual knowledge of infringing files.
As Judge Collins already observed, however, Perfect 10’s practice of sending Giganews screenshots of a newsreader window along with instructions “to conduct searches of specific names within certain newsgroups” and instructing Giganews “that all of the messages yielded by those searches on a certain date contained infringing material” ... fails to substantially comply with the requirements for a DMCA takedown notice. In order to comply with the DMCA (and therefore confer actual knowledge on the recipient), a takedown notice must identify “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.”.... (emphasis added). “The goal of this provision is to provide the service provider with adequate information to find and address the allegedly infringing material expeditiously.” ....In fact, the court highlights that Perfect 10's CEO Norman Zada more or less admits that he could provide Giganews with actual details of infringing content very easily, but has chosen not to.
Perfect 10’s takedown notices, which “point[] to a list of search results, not to any material in particular,” ... obstruct this goal. As Judge Collins observed, “the material accessible through the Usenet is in a constant state of flux. As such, there is no certainty that any particular search will yield the exact same results at different times. Searches moments apart could yield different results.” .... But even if the results of such searches were consistent, Perfect 10’s search-screenshot takedown notices “requires a Usenet provider to compare its search results to Plaintiff’s search results in an onerous side-by-side, line-by-line manner” ... defeating the service provider’s ability to “find and address the allegedly infringing material expeditiously.” Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 940 F.Supp.2d at 115. This is particularly true where, as here, Perfect 10’s voluminous takedown notices would require a manual, line-by-line comparison of countless individual search results for each notice. And even Perfect 10’s evidence revealed that their own search-criteria method “yielded some messages that were non-infringing.” ... These aspects of Perfect 10’s takedown notices are particularly problematic because a takedown notice under the DMCA must also include “a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complaint of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”... But in the absence of any assurance that Giganews’ search results would yield results consistent with Perfect 10’s search, or that Perfect 10’s search results were limited to infringing material, it would be impossible to make that necessary representation in good faith.
In fact, Perfect 10’s CEO, Norma Zada recently declared under oath that, using the Message-ID extraction feature, he was able to extract the Message-IDs for 19 pages of search results.... Using that same method, Zada estimated it would take less than 15 minutes to extract the Message-ID’s for “more than 90% of the infringing Perfect 10 content that Perfect 10 is aware of on Defendant’s servers.” ... And in deposition, Zada testified it is “actually very easy for Perfect 10 to collect message IDs to put into a DMCA notice” and that Perfect 10 has now extracted Message IDs for “approximately 54,000 Perfect 10 messages,” but Perfect 10 refuses to submit a DMCA takedown notice using that informationRather, the court notes that whenever Giganews does get Message IDs, it does, in fact, remove that content quickly, as is required. In fact, this becomes clear from Perfect 10's own evidence in the case.
So we get another Perfect 10 loss in court, and another good ruling for intermediaries not responsible for either direct or indirect infringement. I doubt it will get Perfect 10 to stop suing others, but hopefully others won't be so quick to settle when they see how frequently the company loses.
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, direct infringement, indirect infringement, nathan zada, secondary liability
Companies: giganews, perfect 10
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fear the non-existent penalties for copyfraud
And even Perfect 10’s evidence revealed that their own search-criteria method “yielded some messages that were non-infringing.
So on one hand they claim that every result shown by repeating the search they did will be infringing, yet later on their own evidence shows that that is not true.
It's probably a good thing for them that there's no penalty for copyfraud, otherwise that would seem to be a pretty clear-cut example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another way to describe indirect infringement...
If the answer is zero, then there is no causative link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another way to describe indirect infringement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another way to describe indirect infringement...
Let's hope you like surprises then, because it's true. Pornaholics still subscribe to usenet services.
The "traditional" method of finding binary usenet content was by downloading all the headers in a newsgroup and then browsing through the titles to see if anything there looked interesting. But today, very few people find content that way. Usenet indexing sites (not to be confused with search engines) have largely replaced "the header method" which has become very difficult and time-consuming to navigate today because of both spam and encrypted-subject-line posts.
Most usenet images, by the way, are archived in large "packs" and posted as split rars. Although many pictures can still be found, 1990s style, uploaded as individual images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Astroturf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except that they're still getting trounced in the courts. It's hilarious to watch the trolls get proven wrong, every time, wasting the arguments they so desperately want to believe in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nitpicky, but important
And ah, what criminal proceedings would those be by the way? Several groups have claimed that MU staff engaged in uploading copyrighted stuff to their own servers, but I don't seem to recall the case that found those claims to be valid and accurate.
Given a judge based part of his ruling on that, it's kinda important to make the distinction between 'claimed in court' and 'found to be true' in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nitpicky, but important
IIRC, the feds haven't even properly completed service of process on that case - something technical having to do with country of residence or some such, as memory serves.
I wonder if demanding the court in that case take judicial notice of this case might not put the cat among the pigeons, vis-a-vis megaupload? I'm thinking rule 201 of the rules of evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nitpicky, but important
OOPS! The judge made a big error there. It was actually a civil case, Perfect 10, Inc. v. MegaUpload, CV 11-019 that was being referred to, and that lawsuit was privately settled out of court, the only public term of the settlement was that both parties would ask US District Court Judge Irma Gonzalez to vacate her decision made in July 2011 that found that the plaintiff's allegatons had fulfilled the 'volitional-conduct' requirement for the claim of "direct" infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
both sides came out winners
It should be obvious to most anyone that Perfect 10 is, first and foremost, a copyright shakedown troll. As with all copyright trolls, it's their business model to get as many people as possible to pay what amounts to protection money to make them go away. This shakedown racket only works if victims believe that they'll be taken to court and run through the ringer (and perhaps being bankrupted in the process) if they don't pay up. Therefore, Perfect 10 has no choice but to sue in order to maintain its reputation as a scorched-earth litigant that everyone would be better off "settling" with than the alternative, bearing the cost of a lengthy court battle.
Giganews also has no choice but to fight it in court all the way through. That's because settling with Perfect 10 (or anyone else) would literally open up the floodgates of copyright trolls. But unlike Perfect 10, Giganews had to win this fight, as losing would mean shutting down (as happened to News-Service in the Netherlands) because the task of keeping all infringing content off the service would be impossible.
Perfect 10's loss in court was not really a loss at all. In fact, it was a victory for them because it only reinforces the kind of choice that most victims of copyright trolls have to make: "will it be less expensive for us to pay the extortion or to fight this bully?" For most people, the obvious answer is to pay off the trolls. But not for Giganews.
So here we have two adversaries in a long hard-fought court battle, because for each of them, their respective business models would be destroyed if they didn't fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: both sides came out winners
What the troll business model requires is that someone with competent lawyers and deep enough pockets does not fight them. Losing cases means the next potential victim has case law probably on their side. With a competent lawyer, the troll has to fold and writing a couple of letters is relatively cheap and well within the reach of many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: both sides came out winners
Then why has no one yet countersued Perfect 10 as a vexatious litigant? Perhaps because doing so would be an uphill battle?
Perfect 10 has sued many times before and lost every time. Losing in court has never stopped this copyright troll from suing again and this latest loss to Giganews is unlikely to change anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: both sides came out winners
In a perfect world, respective litigants' legal fees would be held in escrow until the case was finally concluded. Upon conclusion, the losing side would have the right to bill for their services at the rate of minimum wage, perhaps with reasonable and verifiable expenses tacked on top. The balance of the escrowed amount should go to the victor to compensate them for their time and trouble, and their advocates as they saw fit and as their contract stipulated.
Determining the legality, morality, and ethics of a given situation via the legal system should not be a licence to print money for the legal profession, as it often seems to be. Counseling a client that the case is winnable, as Perfect 10's lawyers appear to have done here, should have immediate negative effects for advancing such arguments.
It's nice to see they're finally being given the bum's rush. Too bad we can't hang 'em for trying to pull this crap in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I'm not dead yet." -- Monty Python.
I still read usenet. There's even free servers (nntp.aioe.org). Comp.risks is still the best generic systems analysis gathering hole, mailing list debian-user is mirrored, and it seems the spammers have almost all left, well, from the groups I read.
I don't imagine you'll find the binaries groups for free anymore, but they're hardly needed today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect 10 sounds like a fantasy using internet as a sex toy to achieve ejaculation or orgasm through the process; and its claim on copy right on blind date service as satisfaction guaranteed....and it was the production.
I am not sure if its repeal will reverse on such fantasy as act out nature's intent; but my fantasy as my editor, Ms Albright or Anderson can consume all white water, black water and even hogwash if she can see what I wrote on copyright of the cartoon I made on Obamacare. I don't think she will approve it even I can made many laugh.
Fantasy result guaranteed....blind date service with who may not be the issue as copy right implemented. It certainly have a self-conflict here...LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]