by Lee Gesmer | Jan 31, 2019 | General
This extraordinary software copyright case — Oracle v. Google — has been in the courts for eight years, and I’ve blogged about it almost every step of the way. After winning twice in district court and losing two appeals before the Federal Circuit the case is on appeal to the Supreme Court for the second time. In its petition to the Court Google’s “questions presented” are:
- Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface.
- Whether, as the jury found, Google’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
The first question was the focus of the first trial and appeal by Oracle. Google asked the Supreme Court to decide this issue after losing the first appeal, but was rebuffed. The second question was the subject of the second trial, which Google won on a jury verdict and lost on Oracle’s appeal to the Federal Circuit.
To recap, Google need a mobile operating system for its smartphones, and wanted to use Java. After negotiations to license Java from Oracle were unsuccessful Google rewrote the programming language code for Java (the implementing code) to be compatible with Java. It called this Android. It was careful to do this without copying the code for the Java language or infringing Oracle’s copyright in this work.
However, Google did copy the Java “declaring code” or naming structure (basically function calls), in order to make Android more familiar and accessible to Java programmers.
In the first appeal in this case the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the trial judge and held that the declaring code was copyright protected, and therefore Google had engaged in copyright infringement. However, this conclusion was subject to Google’s fair use defense, which the jury had hung on at the first trial. It therefore remanded the case to the district court for a second trial on fair use.
At the second trial the jury found that Google’s copying was protected by fair use. However, Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit again, and the Federal Circuit found that Google’s copy of the declaring code was not protected by fair use. This decision was extremely controversial – it was the first time a federal appeals court has overruled a jury verdict on fair use.
With respect to the first question presented — whether copyright protection extends to a software interface — Google’s current appeal focuses on the First Circuit’s 1995 decision in Lotus v. Borland. In that case the First Circuit held that the menu command hierarchy in the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet program was a “method of operation,” and therefore excluded from copyright protection under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act.
That decision was the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. In 1996 the Court deadlocked 4-4, and as a consequence the First Circuit’s decision was affirmed. However, due to the 4-4 deadlock it became law only in the First Circuit, not nationally. Lotus was an important decision at the time, but it has remained an outlier – no other court has fully adopted the holding in Lotus v. Borland.
In seeking Supreme Court review Google argues that there is a circuit split, as follows:
. . . the courts of appeals are deeply divided on the appropriate standard for determining the circumstances under which a software interface is copyrightable … . At a minimum, the Federal Circuit’s standard directly conflicts with the standard adopted by the First and Sixth Circuits. The Court should grant review to resolve the conflict among the courts of appeals on this exceptionally important issue.
On the second question presented — whether Google’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use — Google argues:
Because the jury returned a general verdict on fair use, the Federal Circuit correctly stated that it “must assume that the jury resolved all factual issues relating to the historical facts in favor of the verdict.” . . . But the Federal Circuit said one thing and did another: it reconsidered for itself a number of factual issues presented to the jury and resolved those issues in support of the conclusion that Google’s use was unfair as a matter of law. . . . To permit that approach would condone an unprecedented degree of appellate second guessing of factual determinations in fair-use cases. This Court’s intervention is urgently warranted to rectify the Federal Circuit’s profoundly flawed approach.
I’m going to predict that the Supreme Court will accept review of this case on at least one of the two issues presented by Google. This case is of real importance to the software industry, and there is a good chance the Supreme Court will recognize that, as it did when it accepted review of Lotus v. Borland 24 years ago.
However, there are two issues lurking beneath the surface that could impact the Court’s decision of whether to grant review. T’he first is the unusual procedural posture of the case. It came to the Federal Circuit because there were patent infringement claims at an earlier stage of the case. This required that any appeals — even an appeal of a non-patent issue — be directed to the Federal Circuit rather than to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was tried. However, Federal Circuit decisions that come to it from other circuits and do not involve patent law do not become the law in those circuits for purposes of legal precedent. This means that courts in the Ninth Circuit are not bound by the Federal Circuit’s ruling in this case. This fact diminishes the impact of the “circuit split.” It’s a circuit split between the First Circuit (Lotus) and the Federal Circuit, which hears very few copyright cases, and a First Circuit/Federal Circuit “split” may be less significant than a First Circuit/Ninth Circuit split would have been.
The second issue is the position of the Solicitor General. When Google appealed the Federal Circuit’s first decision the Supreme Court requested the Solicitor General’s opinion on whether it should take the case. The Solicitor General advised against review at that time, noting that the case involved “substantial and important concerns” that should be addressed through the fair use doctrine. The fair use doctrine was the subject of the second trial, and it’s likely the Supreme Court will ask for the Solicitor General’s views again. The recommendation of the current Solicitor General’s office on the issues in this case will be an important factor in the Court’s decision whether to review the case.
These technicalities aside, this is a hugely important case for the U.S. software industry. We can only hope that that Supreme Court recognizes this, and decides to clarify the issues presented by the case.
Please.
First Update: In September 2019 the Solicitor General (representing the United States) filed a brief opposing a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has agreed with an SG recommendation to deny cert over 90% of the time (Comparing Cert Stage OSG Efforts Under Obama and Trump (link)), so things are not looking good for Google at the moment.
Second Update: The Supreme Court granted cert (review). See my resources page here: link
FOOTNOTES
by Lee Gesmer | Dec 21, 2018 | Copyright
I first posted on Capitol Records v. Redigi in March 2012 (Redigi Case Poses A Novel Copyright Question on the Resale of Digital Audio Files – Is “Digital First Sale Legal? Link), and posted a number of follow-up articles on this interesting case. Absent an appeal to the Supreme Court this long-running copyright case has finally come to an end with the Second Circuit’s December 12, 2018 decision holding that Redigi infringed the exclusive copyright right of reproduction with respect to the “second-hand” digital music files it sold via the Redigi system.
To understand this case it’s important to appreciate how Redigi’s system works. I explained this in detail in the post linked above, and the Second Circuit opinion describes it quite thoroughly as well. In short, Redigi acts as a broker for music files purchased and downloaded from iTunes. Redigi uploads a seller’s music file to its own server and offers it for sale, deleting it from the seller’s computer, although the seller can continue to stream the file until it is sold. When a buyer selects it for purchase, it is retitled in the name of the buyer, and the seller loses access to it. The buyer may then stream or download the file to her computer or device.
Redigi’s service irritated the record companies no end, and they sued for copyright infringement, asserting that Redigi was engaging in copyright infringement. Redigi, relying on the “first sale” doctrine, argued it did not.
The copyright first sale doctrine is an important exception to the copyright exclusive right of “distribution.” It allows the owner of a copyrighted work to sell the copy or phonorecord in which the work is fixed. This explains the existence of markets for second-hand books, records and CDs.
Redigi argued that its service fell within the protection of first sale. The record companies argued that this analogy was inapt, since Redigi was not distributing the original file, but reproducing it on its server and on the buyer’s computer.
The federal district court ruled in favor of the record companies (decision here and the Second Circuit (in an opinion written by Judge Pierre Leval, the Second Circuit’s prolific and influential copyright judge) agreed, reasoning as follows:
In the course of transferring a digital music file from an original purchaser’s computer, through ReDigi, to a new purchaser, the digital file is first received and stored on ReDigi’s server and then, at the new purchaser’s option, may also be subsequently received and stored on the new purchaser’s device. At each of these steps, the digital file is fixed in a new material object . . . The fixing of the digital file in ReDigi’s server, as well as in the new purchaser’s device, creates a new phonorecord, which is a reproduction . . . ReDigi’s server and the resale purchaser’s device on which the digital music files are fixed constitute or contain new phonorecords under the statute. (Emphasis added)
Redigi also argued (half-heartedly, it seems) that its system was protected by fair use, but this was an obvious loser. First, Redigi cannot show that it’s system is transformative. Second, Redigi makes identical copies of the whole copyrighted sound recording, which cuts against fair use. Third, the reproductions created by Redigi are sold in competition with the market for the original sound recordings, another negative factor. Each of these factors weighed against fair use, and Redigi lost on its fair use defense as well.
The bottom line: Redigi is enjoined from operating its service, and the company and its founders are on the hook for $3.5 million.
In an interesting postscript to this case, Redigi has developed a new methodology (“Redigi 2.0”) which allows a user to place a music file in the Redigi cloud server in the first place (it’s never downloaded to the user’s computer) and then simply transfer ownership to that file. Under this system Redigi never makes a copy (or enables users to make a copy), so it may not infringe the reproduction right. However, as part of a stipulated injunction in the district court Redigi agreed not to implement Redigi 2.0, and therefore its unclear whether the legality of this system will ever be tested in the courts.
Here’s my non-exhaustive take on how digital music files are treated under copyright law post-Redigi:
- You purchase a CD that contains a digital music file authorized for sale by the copyright owner. You may sell it under first sale.
- You legally download a copyrighted music file to your computer and you transfer it to your smart phone for your personal use. This form of “space-shifting” is permitted based on fair use. Capital Record’s lawyer conceded this during oral argument before the district court in Redigi, and the Second Circuit commented on it favorably (in dicta) in its decision. It’s worth noting that the record companies have never sued a consumer for space-shifting legally acquired music files for personal use.
- You legally download a music file to your computer and then upload it to a cloud service so you can stream it on your smart phone or speaker (e.g., an Amazon Echo). This is permitted based on fair use.
- You purchase a device preloaded with music files authorized by the copyright owner. You can sell the device based on first sale, since this is a distribution, not a reproduction.
- You download music files to your computer and sell your computer with your files on it. This is protected by first sale.
- You download copyright-protected music files to your computer, transfer them to a thumb drive and delete them from your computer (i.e. “copy and delete”). You then sell the thumb drive. This is not protected by either first sale or fair use – based on Redigi this is an illegal reproduction.
- You legally download a music file to your computer, upload it to a cloud service, and then give your password to 25 of your closest friends or college dorm-mates so they can stream it. This is a violation of the copyright rights of reproduction, distribution and public performance. You lose.
Capitol Records LLC v. Redigi, Inc. (2nd Cir. Dec. 12, 2018)
Update: the Supreme Court denied review of this case, leaving the Second Circuit’s decision as the final word.
Footnotes:
by Lee Gesmer | Dec 13, 2018 | Copyright
Every few decades Congress enacts a major amendment to the U.S. Copyright Act. We are at one of those inflection points now. On October 11, 2018 the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (the “MMA”) was signed into law. (click here for full text of the law)
This is a massive, game-changing law for digital music distribution, and it may take years for it to be fully integrated with the complex U.S. music copyright system. But, if you’re at a holiday party this season and someone insists on discussing the MMA with you, this blog post will give you a few talking points.
From a 40,000 foot level the MMA does three things.
First, and most importantly, it completely revamps the U.S. mechanical licensing system for interactive digital streaming services and digital downloads by shifting the burden of identifying composers from the services to the composers themselves. This is a huge benefit to the digital music services, who in the pre-MMA era were responsible for locating composers entitled to royalties but often failed to do so, creating an enormous potential liability for copyright infringement.
Second, it requires interactive streaming services to make royalty payments to owners of pre-1972 sound recordings for the first time.
And third, it authorizes and facilitates payments to non-musicians who contribute to sound recordings, such as producers and sound engineers.
Before proceeding bear in mind that this law is very complex – the MMA itself is 66 pages of dense legal text. Millions of words and thousands of lawyer hours will be spent dissecting, analyzing and litigating this law in the coming years. This post is only a high-level introduction to the MMA – just enough that you can comment semi-intelligently if the topic comes up at a party during the holidays. I’ve put more detail into the footnotes, which you can read if you’re interested in going a bit deeper. And, I’ll delve more deeply into some of the issues raised by the MMA in subsequent posts.
With that warning …
Compulsory Licensing and the Mechanical Licensing Collective
The MMA creates a “blanket license” for digital music service providers to sell interactive music streams. It authorizes the creation of a quasi-governmental “Mechanical Licensing Collective” (the “Collective” or “MLC”) to administer this system. The Collective will create and maintain an online, publicly available “musical works database” of all the musical works (notes and lyrics), their owners and the percentage ownership of works co-written by multiple songwriters. The interactive digital streaming services will pay the Collective, and the Collective will pay songwriters.
The licensing system is “compulsory,” in the sense that composers are compelled by operation of law to enter into the licenses, there is no “opt-out,” and the license exists whether or not composers take any action to make sure they are properly registered with the Collective.
Who will create this massive database and how long it will take to populate it is yet to be determined.
The Collective is charged with developing and maintaining the database. However, in the end it will be up to composers to get accurate ownership information to the Collective – that’s the only way composers can be sure they’ll get paid.
Once the database is operational the MMA’s goal is for the database to contain ownership data for every musical work protected by U.S. copyright law. This includes musical works owned by non-U.S. songwriters as well as U.S. composers, if their works are streamed in the U.S. Therefore, songwriters outside the U.S. will have to make sure their works are properly registered with the Collective if they want to be paid.
Spotify Logo
The MMA allows digital streaming companies to pay the proper owners by paying the Collective. This allows interactive streaming companies (for example, Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Deezer, Tidal) to stop worrying about whether they are paying songwriter royalties to the proper rights holders, a major liability risk pre-MMA. Their obligations to songwriters under copyright law will be satisfied as long as they pay the Collective. It’s up to the Collective to then pay the songwriters. And it’s up to the songwriters to make sure their compositions are correctly registered with the Collective.
How much will songwriters be paid under this compulsory license? As was the case before the MMA, royalty rates will be set by the Copyright Royalty Board.
If it strikes you that this law is a mind-blowingly complex and ambitious undertaking, you are right! How long it will take for the Collective to select a developer and get the database established with correct ownership information is anyone’s guess. However, the target date for the cut-over to this system is January 1, 2021.
So, a few takeaways your holiday party –
- “Wow, can they really do this in two years? I’ll bet Congress will have to extend the effective date.”
- “Who will get the contract for this project – Microsoft or Oracle? Ha ha …”
- “How many songwriters will never hear about this, or won’t bother to register with the MLC? I mean, lots of musicians haven’t heard of SoundExchange even today, 17 years after it was created.”
- “The MMA prevents songwriters from recovering statutory damages infringements retroactively to January 1, 2018 – is that constitutional? I’ll bet that issue will be litigated.”
Pre-1972 Sound Recordings
People are often surprised to learn that U.S. copyright law did not cover public performances of pre-1972 sound recordings. When you hear Stairway to Heaven (1971) played on the radio or digitally streamed on an interactive service like Spotify, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant (the composers) receive a songwriter royalty. But no one else is paid royalties (the other band members or, more likely, the record company that owns the recording).
This will change under the MMA, but only for sales by digital streaming services and satellite radio stations, such as Sirius XM. So-called “terrestrial” radio stations (AM/FM radio) can still play pre-1972 sound recordings without paying a royalty to the rights-holders (although they must pay songwriter royalties, as they have in the past, typically through the PROs).
While this seems like a fair start to paying owners of pre-1972 sound recordings, one aspect of the law is particularly controversial – the duration of the new public performance copyright in the sound recordings. I’ll address this issue in a later post. (Hint: the duration is long).
Takeaways for your holiday party:
- “So, this is digital only? Why doesn’t AM/FM radio have to pay royalties also? That doesn’t seem fair.”
- “So, even though pre-1972 sound recordings have been in the public domain with respect to public performances for more than 45 years, they will now suddenly be protected by copyright law? Is it right for the law to suddenly protect sound recordings that have been in the public domain (for public performances) after such a long time?”
Payments to Producers
This part of the MMA creates a system for SoundExchange to pay royalties directly to producers based on a “letter of direction” SoundExchange receives from recording artists. For sound recordings fixed before November 1, 1995, even in the absence of a letter of direction SoundExchange will allocate 2% of royalties for a sound recording to be paid to producers involved in the making of that sound recording.
Takeaway for your holiday party:
- “Music producers contribute a lot to sound recordings. It’s about time the law recognizes this!”
Conclusion
Yes, this is a huge, complicated law, and I’ve barely scraped the surface. It’s going to take a long time for it to percolate fully throughout the music world. And, it’s going to be a challenge for the Copyright Office to implement it under the schedule set by Congress. Whether it turns out to be beneficial for music composers and the copyright system as a whole will not be known for years.
More to come.
Update: On July 5, 2019 the Copyright Office announced that the Mechanical Licensing Collective, Inc. (MLC) has been selected as the entity that would administer the blanket license and distribute collected royalties to songwriters and music publishers. As discussed above, this entity will be responsible for developing and maintaining a comprehensive database of musical works and sound recordings, which will be publicly available. The MLC is led by the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), the Nashville Songwriters International Association and the Songwriters of North America (AMLC). Ed Christman goes into this decision in detail in his Billboard article, Why The U.S. Copyright Office Chose The Mechanical Licensing Collective.
Footnotes:
by Lee Gesmer | Nov 28, 2018 | General, Trademark
The U.S. Supreme Court decides very few intellectual property cases. And, it accepts review of few cases from the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston (my circuit). So, when the Supreme Court accepts an IP case appealing a decision from the First Circuit, as it has now, I pay attention.
The case under appeal involves a narrow but important legal issue that is of interest to both the intellectual property licensing and bankruptcy communities. Here is a brief summary of what’s at issue.
The decision on appeal is Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC (1st Cir. January 12, 2018), and the issue is a mashup of trademark and bankruptcy law.
When a company files for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee or the debtor-in-possession (the “debtor”) may secure court approval to “reject” any executory contracts to which the debtor is a party. An example would be a distribution agreement for a specific term (say five years) that has not run its course. If the distributor goes into bankruptcy two years into the five year term it can “reject” the contract – it is no longer obligated to perform during the remaining years.
The debtor doesn’t get off completely free – it is left with a liability for a pre-petition breach of the contract. 11 U.S.C. § 365(g) (“[T]he rejection of an executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor constitutes a breach of such contract or lease … immediately before the date of the filing of the petition….”). However, the other party to the contract has nothing more than an unsecured claim, and these are often worth little in bankruptcy proceedings.
There is an important exception to this rule, which leads to the issue in this case. When the rejected contract is one “under which the debtor is a licensor of a right to intellectual property,” the licensee may elect to “retain its rights … to such intellectual property,” in effect forcing the continuation of the license. 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(1).
However, the exception presents a potential problem for licensees in one respect – the definition of “intellectual property” includes patents, trade secrets and copyrights, but does not mention trademarks, a form of intellectual property that is often the subject of license agreements. 11 USC § 101(35)(A)
The First Circuit case involved an ongoing (“executory”) trademark license, and the debtor took the position that because trademarks are not included in the list of exceptions, it was entitled to reject (terminate) a trademark license. The licensee, the other party in the case, took the opposite position, asserting that the trademark license should continue.
The licensee lost before the bankruptcy court and appealed to the First Circuit. After a review of the statutory history of the law and the policy issues involved, the First Circuit held that Congress meant what it said by omitting trademarks from the list of the kinds of intellectual property that cannot be rejected by a Chapter 11 debtor – executory trademark licenses are an exception to the exception, and they can be rejected by a debtor. Therefore, the licensee lost its ongoing trademark license.
However, this ruling set up a “circuit conflict” with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. For reasons too detailed to go into here, in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC (7th Cir. 2012), the Seventh Circuit held that Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not entitle the debtor to terminate a trademark license.
This conflict between the First and Seventh Circuits led the Supreme Court to accept an appeal of this case. And, this is clearly a case worthy of Supreme Court review. Prospective licensees should know whether or not they will be able to continue to use a trademark if the licensor files for bankruptcy, not that it depends on where in the country the bankruptcy is filed and therefore which circuit’s law is controlling. A decision by the Court will resolve, nationwide, the status of trademark rights when a debtor rejects a license agreement in bankruptcy.
Briefing on this case has not yet begun, but the case is likely to be heard next year, and a decision issued before the Supreme Court 2018-19 term ends next June. I’ll update this post when a decision is issued. In the meantime, here is a link to the Scotusblog page for the case.
Update, May 2019: The Supreme Court ruled that a debtor may not terminate a trademark license. Link to decision.
FOOTNOTES
by Lee Gesmer | Oct 26, 2018 | DMCA/CDA
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has, once again, protected a website from a claim of defamation based on user postings.
Simply put, Section 230 of the CDA provides that a website isn’t liable for defamation (or any other non-intellectual property claim) based on user postings. The poster may be liable (if she can be identified), but the website is not. Typically, Section 230 cases involve defamation or interference with contract by the poster — copyright infringement based on user postings is handled by a separate statute, the DMCA.
Craft Beer Stellar, LLC’s suit against Glasdoor ran into this law head-first in a recent case decided by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Dennis Saylor.
Craft Beer complained to Glassdoor over a critical posting by a Craft Beer franchisee (the fact that the post was by a franchisee rather than an employee is legally irrelevant). Glassdoor removed the posting on the ground that it violated Glassdoor’s community guidelines. The franchisee reposted, this time in compliance with the guidelines, and Glassdoor denied a request by Craft Beer to remove the second posting.
Craft Beer argued that by taking down the first review and allowing the second review to be posted Glassdoor lost its Section 230 immunity. The judge summarized its argument as follows:
Glassdoor essentially contends that Glassdoor’s decision to remove a “review” from its website for violating its community guidelines, combined with its subsequent decision to allow the updated, guidelines-compliant version of the “review” to be re-posted, constituted a material revision and change to the post’s content. Such a material revision, it contends, constituted an act of creating or developing the post’s content, and accordingly transformed Glassdoor from an (immunized) interactive computer service into an information-content provider not subject to the protections of §230.
Judge Saylor rejected this argument, noting that Glassdoor wrote neither of the two posts; it just made a decision to publish or withdraw the posts. First Circuit precedent holds that these kinds of “traditional editorial functions” — deciding whether to publisher or withdraw content — fall squarely within Section 230’s grant of immunity. See Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com LLC (1st Cir. March 14, 2016) (“lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content — are barred”).
Craft Beer also claimed that Glassdoor had violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836. However, as noted above, Section 230 provides protection for non-intellectual property claims. Although one would ordinarily think of a trade secret claim as an intellectual property claim (and therefore not covered by Section 230), the DTSA expressly states that the DTSA “shall not be construed to be a law pertaining to intellectual property for purposes of any other Act of Congress.” Accordingly, Section 230 provided Glassdoor with protection from the DTSA claim as well. (For an in-depth discussion of this issue see Professor Eric Goldman’s article, The Defend Trade Secrets Act Isn’t an ‘Intellectual Property’ Law.)
The larger problem for Craft Beer may be that not only did the judge dismiss its complaint, but the case probably has added publicity to the bad reviews Craft Beer sought to quash. Indeed, even if it had won the case and forced Glassdoor to take down the offending posts, potential franchisees researching the company online would find the posts quoted in court decisions in the case. As things now stand, Craft Beer is probably suffering to some extent from the Streisand Effect (for another example of Section 230 and the “Streisland Effect” see here). And, if it is considering an appeal to the First Circuit (a bad move, in my opinion), a decision from the First Circuit will only make matters worse.
Craft Beer Stellar, LLC v. Glassdoor, Inc. (D. Mass Oct. 17, 2018)
