amici_internat_082503

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Nos. 03-55894 & 03-56236 METRO-GOLDWYN-MA YER STUDIOS INC., et al., Plainti ffs- Appellants, v. GROKSTER LTD., et al., DefendantsAppellees. No. 03-55901 JERRY LEIBER, individually d.b.a. Jerry Leiber Music, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GROKSTER LTD., et al., DefendantsAppellees. t'" "', ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ~TATES I;>ISTRICTCOURT '. ~ " FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case Nos. CY-01-08541-SYW & CY-01-09923-SYW Honorable Stephen Y. Wilson, United States District Court Judge BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS OWNERS DA YID. R. SCHEIDEMANTLE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310.557.2900 (tel.) 310.557.2193 (fax) HANK L. GOLDSMITH Attorneys Amici BureauInternationaldesSocietes for Gerant lesDroits d'Enregistrement de Reproduction et Mecanique, InternationalConfederation Societies Authorsand of of Composers, International Confederation Music Publishers, of InternationalFederationof thePhonographic Industry, International Federation of Actors, International Federation of Film Producers Associations, International Federation of Musicians, International Publishers Association, and International VideoFederation t I ! I I' , I \ TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATEDISCLOSURE STATEMENT STATEMENT OF AMICI illENTITY AND INTEREST 1 2 "'... SUMMARYOF ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. DENYING INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS OWNERS EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ENFORCINGTHEIR RIGHTS AGAINST MASSIVE INFRINGEMENTS ON PEERTOPEERSERVICESCONTRAVENES INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY A. InternationalAgreements RequireRecognitionOf Substantive Rights,And Effective MeansOf Enforcing ThoseRights. The District Court DecisionIn PracticeStrips InternationalRights OwnersOf An Effective MeansOf Enforcing Their Rights 7 9 9 9 B. 20 II. THIS DECISION WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSillERATION AS COURTSOUTSillE THE U.S. GRAPPLEWITH THESE ISSUE~. 23 28 CONCLUSION i / """"~""', ~ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES United States A&MRecords, Inc. v. Napster,Inc., 239 F.3d 1004(9th Cir. 2001), affirmingA&MRecords, Inc. v. Napster,Inc., 114F. Stipp.2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000) AlexanderMurray v. SchoonerCharmingBetsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch.)64 (1804) China SteelCorp. v. United States, 264 F. Stipp.2d 1339(Ct. Int'l Trade2003) FederalMogul Corp. v. UnitedStates, 63 F.3d 1572(Fed. Cir. 1995) Hopson v. Kreps, 23 16 19 16 '\ 622 F.2d 1375(9th Cir. 1980) In re Aimster CopyrightLitig., 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003) Metro-Goldwyn-MayerStudios,Inc. v. Grokster,Ltd., 259 F. Stipp.2d 1029(C.D. Cal. 2003) PAM, S.p.A.v. United States, slip. op. 2003-48(Ct. Int'l TradeMay 8, 2003) ParfumsGivenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium,Inc., 38 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 1994) SonyCorp. of America v. Universal City Studios,Inc. 464 U.S. 417, 104S.Ct. 774 (1984) Timkenv. United States, 240 F. Stipp. 1228(Ct. Int'l Trade2003) 18 21 12,20, 22 19 11 18 19 11 I I ~~-"'"~ I UnitedStatesv. Moghadam, 175F.3d 1269(11th Cir. 1999). KQ~ Asia Media Inc. et al. v. Yanget al., No. 2002KAHAP77 (SuwonDistrict Court, Seongnam Branch, First Civil Dep't, 9 July 2002) @~ Nippon Columbia Co.,Ltd., et al. v. Yugen Kaisha Nippon MMO, 2002 (Wa) CaseNo. 4249 (Tokyo Dist. Ct., 29th Civil Div., interlocutoryjudgement29 Jan.2003) The Netherlands Kazaav. Buma/Stemra, No. KG 01/2264OdC (AmsterdamCt. of Justice,29 Nov. 2001), rev'd, No. 1370/01(AmsterdamCt. of Appeal, 28 Mar. 2002), appeal filed, No. C 2002/186(Netherlands Sup. Ct., 23 May 2002) STATUTES AND RULES 17U.S.C. § 104 17U.S.C. § 104(b) 17U.S.C. § 104( c) 17U.S.C. § 107 , 12 24 24 26 9 11 18 12 2 1 29 Fed.R. App. P. 29(a) 9th Cir. Rule 26.1 9th Cir. Rule 32-1 III ,~ INTERNA nONAL AGREEMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS Berne Convention the Protection of Literary and Artistic for Works,July 24, 1971,U.S. Senate Treaty Doc. 99-27, KA V 2245, 1 B.D.I.B.L. 715 9, 11 Certain GermanInterestsin Polish Upper Silesia, [1926] PCIJ Rep., SeriesA, No. 7 Convention the Protection of Producersof Phonograms for Against Unauthorized Duplication ofTheirPhonograms (Geneva,1971) Oct. 29,1971,25 U.S.T. 309, T.I.A.S. 7808,888 U.N.T.S. 67 India - PatentProtectionfor Pharmaceuticals Protection and Agricultural ChemicalProducts,No. 95-0000(WT/DS50/ABIR, 19Dec. 1997) Requestfor Consultations the United States, by European Communities Enforcementof Intellectual Property Rightsfor Motion Pictures and TelevisionPrograms,No. 98-1824 (WT/DSI24/1, 1P/D/13,7 May 1998) 15 10,11 15 13, 14 Request Consultations the United States,Greece- Enforcement for by of Intellectual Property Rightsfor Motion Pictures and Television Programs,No. 98-1813(WT/DSI25/1, 1P/D/14, 7 May 1998) 13, 14 Universal Copyright Convention,(Paristext, 1971),July 24, 1971, 25 U.S.T. 1341,T.I.A.S. 7868, 1 B.D.I.B.L. 813 10, 11, 13 WIPO Copyright Treaty, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17,36 I.L.M. 65 (Geneva,1997) 10, 11, 13 WIPOPerformances and PhonogramsTreaty,S. Treaty Doc. No. 05-17, 36 I.L.M. 76 (Geneva,1997) World Trade Organization'sAgreement TradeRelatedAspectsof on Intellectual Property Rights,MarrakeshAgreementEstablishing the World Trade Organization,Annex IC, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1125 10, 11 9-10 IV OTHER AUTHORITIES 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 18.06[B][2] A. Dixon, Internet CopyrightLitigation: Non-US. Developments, BNA WorldE-Commerce& IP Report (June2003) H.R. Doc. No. 103-316,103dCong.,2d Sess. (1994) H.R. Rep.No. 103-826,103dCong.,2d Sess., 1 (1994) pt. 12 23, 26 17 17 11 18 P. Geller,Ilnt'l CopyrightLaw & Practice, 3[3](b) ~~ P. Geller, Ilnt'l Copyright Law & Practice,~~ 3[4](a) PressRelease, RIAJ, Court DecidedJapanMMO, A File Sharing ServiceCompany, For Illegality; Interlocutory Judgmentby the TokyoDistrict Court (29 Jan.2003). World TradeOrganization,Reportof the Panel,United StatesSection337 of the Tariff Act of 1930(BISD 36S/345,7 Nov. 1989) World TradeOrganization,Reportof the Panel,United StatesSection110(5)of the U.S.CopyrightAct, CaseNo. 00-2284, (WT/DSI60/R, 15 June2000) 24 15 12 ~ v CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT [CIRCUIT RULE 26.1] The following amici affiflll that they do not have a parent corporation or any publicly held corporation that owns lO% or more of their stock: Bureau International des Societes Gerant les Droits d'Emegistrement et de Reproduction Mecanique ("BIEM"); International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers ("CISAC"); International Confederation of Music Publishers ("ICMP/CIEM"); International Federation of the Phonographic Industry ("IFPI"); International Federation of Actors ("FIA "); International Federation of Film Producers Associations ("FIAPF"); International Federation of Musicians ("FIM"); International Publishers Association ("IP A "); and International Video Federation ("IVF"). STATEMENT OF AMICI mENTITY AND INTEREST ~ Pursuantto Fed. R. App. P. 29(a),amici statethat all partieshave consented the filing of this brief. to The partiesjoining this amicuscuriae brief are tradeassociations and professionalorganizations basedoutsidethe United States,representing hundreds thousands ownersof copyrightsandrelatedrights allover the of of world. Specifically, amici represent record companies, producersand distributors;musicaland literary publishers;composers authorsof a and variety of protectedworks; rights societies;film producers;musical, theatricaland audiovisualperformers,and video publishers,in more than 100countriesoutsidethe United States. BIEM, foundedin 1929andheadquartered Neuilly-sur-Seine, at France,is the internationalorganizationrepresenting mechanicalrights 41 societies 38 countries,which societieslicensethe reproductionof songs in including musical,literary and dramaticworks. One ofBIEM's principal missionsis to negotiatecompensation its members,the licensorsof for 1 copyrightedworks, for the usesof their works by others. CISAC, foundedin 1926andheadquartered Neuilly-sur-Seine, at France,is a non-governmental, non-profit organizationwith a membership of 209 authors' societiesin 109countries,which societiesrepresentmore 2 than2 million creatorsof musical,dramatic,and literary works, as well as works involving the visual and graphicarts. One ofCISAC's principal objectivesis to watch over, safeguard contributeto the legal interestsof and creators, both in the internationalsphereand in national legislation. ICMP/CIEM, domiciled at Lausanne, Switzerland,is the umbrella non-profit organizationwhich globally represents, through its 30 members national,regionaland internationalmusicpublishers' trade associations in Europe,Northern and Latin America, Australasiaand Africa - most of musicpublishing throughoutthe world. Taking action againstunauthorized Internetusageof copyrightedmusic is one of the priorities for ICMP/CIEM within its missionof promoting the valueof songsand of the peoplewho create,andwho help to create,music. IFPI, foundedin 1933andhaving its registeredoffice in Zurich, Switzerland,is a non-profit tradeassociation representing international the recordingindustry. IFPI's approximately1500record companymembers, who are locatedin 76 countries,own copyrightsandrelatedrights in sound recordings. IFPI's activities focus on combatingtraditional hard goodsand on-line piracy, promoting legislationthat protectsthe rights of intellectual propertyowners,andencouraging healthytrade,and electroniccommerce, in recordedmusic. 3 FIA, foundedin 1952,is an internationalnon-governmental organization registeredin the United Kingdom. FIA currently represents the interests of95 performers' unions, guilds and associations 75 countries in aroundthe world, from North and Latin America, to Europe,Africa and Australasia.FIA is a recognizednon-governmental organizationat UNESCO,the InternationalLabour Organization(ILO), the World IntellectualPropertyOrganization(WIPO), the InternationalTheatre Institute(ITI) and the Council of Europe. FIA's affiliates represent hundreds thousands professionalactors,singers,dancers, of of choreographers, broadcast professionals other artistson a wide rangeof and issues relating to the social andprofessionalprotectionof performers, including their intellectualproperty rights. FIAPF, foundedin 1933andbasedin Paris,France,is madeup of30 nationalproducers'organizations 27 countries. FIAPF's mission is to in defendandpromotethe economicand legal interestsof film and audiovisual producers a global basis. FIAPF participatesin copyright and on neighboringrights' protectionactivities, anti-piracyefforts, the promotion andmaintenance audiovisualtechnologystandards, incentive policies of and for film production/distribution. 4 I..j ;" FIM, foundedin 1948andbasedin Paris,France,represents musiciansworldwide and has approximately70 memberunions locatedin all regionsof the world. Sinceits inception,FIM hasplayed an important role in the internationaldevelopment protectionof performers' rights. It and was one of the driving forcesin the adoptionof the 1961Rome Convention, amongthe first internationaltreatiesto recognizeperformers' intellectual propertyrights, and hasbeenactivein the creationof numerouscollecting rights societies, which manage performers'rights. IPA, basedin Geneva,Switzerland,established an association as underSwisslaw in 1896,represents worldwide book andjournal the publishingindustry (print and electronic)throughits 76 national and specialized memberassociations 66 countries. One of IPA's main in objectivesis to promotea chain of strongand enforceable copyright laws aroundthe world, including for electronicpublishing. IPA enjoys observer statusat the United Nations and its agencies, suchas the Geneva-based WIPO andParis-based UNESCO, andparticipatesin developments the at Geneva-based WTO. IVF is a non-profit internationalassociation established 1988under in Belgian law, with the aim of providing nationalvideo associations with internationalrepresentation their members'interestsaspublishersand of c 5 . ~,~~~ distributors of pre-recorded video cassettesand DVDs. Based in Brussels, Belgium, the IVF representsthousandsof video publishers in numerous international fora, including the European Communities, WIPO, WTO and United Nations institutions. Like the other amici, IVF has a strong interest in protecting the worldwide rights of its members, and supports the promotion and fostering of consistent and effective international enforcement of copyright. \ :J . 6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT -- The decisionbelow is inconsistent with internationalcopyright agreements which the United Statesis a party. Under theseagreements, to the United Stateshasan obligation not only to recognizethe intellectual propertyrights that are violated by unauthorized usesof copyrightedworks on the Internet,but also to provide rights owners-particularly foreign rights ownerssuchasamici-adequate and effectivemeansof enforcing such rights. The decisionbelow raisestwo major concernsfor internationalrights ownersas to the enforceabilityof their rights. The first concernis whetherthey will be able to enforcetheir rights effectively andprotect them from being infringed, on a massiveand unprecedented scale,in the United States, the decisionbelow is not if reversed.Far from promoting effective enforcement copyright, the of decisionbelow immunizespartiesthat areresponsiblefor the infringement of copyrightedworks on a massivescale,and effectively holds that in the faceof suchcopyright infringement,copyright ownershaveno effective recourse whatsoever againstsuchparties. The District Court's decisionthus severelylimits the practical ability of right ownerssuchas amici to enforce their rights effectively againstone of the most virulent speciesof online infringements thosecarriedout usingpeer-to-peer networksdesignedto 7 I facilitate infringement- and therebythreatens place the United Statesin to breachof its internationalobligationsandresponsibilities. The secondconcernis the potentialspill-over effect that this decision could havefor enforcement copyright andrelatedrights outsidethe of United States,especiallyagainstthe unauthorized distribution, useand reproductionof material emanatingfrom the United States. Rights owners havealwaysfacedthe problem of pursuingcounterfeitor infringing cfJpies, producedin countrieswith lax copyright enforcement practices,that cross bordersand infiltrate marketsin other countries. If United Stateslaw now allows serviceslike Morpheusand Groksterto function without restraint, this spill-over problem will be global, massiveand instant-given that hundreds millions of userscan get access the Internet to unauthorized of via copiesof materialsemanatingfrom any country whererights cannotbe, or arenot being, effectively enforced. 8 I i ARGUMENT ~-. I. DENYING INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS OWNERS EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ENFORCING THEIR RIGHTS AGAINST MASSIVE INFRINGEMENTS ON PEER- TO-PEER SERVICES CONTRAVENES INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY A. International AgreementsRequire Recognition Of Substantive Rights, And Effective Means Of Enforcing Those Rights. Internationalrights ownerssuchasamicis' membersare protectedin the United Statesby a numberof internationalagreements concerningthe protectionof intellectualproperty (all of which arereproducedin the appendices ProfessorNimmer's treatise). The main agreements to of relevance here include: . the BerneConventionfor the Protectionof Literary and Artistic Works (protecting"authors" and their representatives and assignees all fields), I in . the World TradeOrganization'sAgreementon Trade-Related Aspectsof IntellectualPropertyRights (protectinga rangeof rights ownerson substantive enforcement and issues ),2 1 July 24, 1971,U.S. Senate Treaty Doc. 99-27,KA V 2245, 1 B.D.I.E.L. 715, 17 U.S.C. § 104; also reprinted at htt ://www.wi o.int/clea/docs/en/wo/woOOlen.htm Convention"). (the "Berne 9 . . . the WIPO "Internet Treaties"(protectingauthors,producersand performerson Internetand othermatters ),3 the Universal Copyright Convention(protectingauthorsin parallel with the BerneConvention),4 and the GenevaPhonograms Convention(protectingproducersagainst unauthorized reproductionof their phonograms).5 A host of other internationallegal obligationsof the United States requiresimilar or relatedprotections.6 2 Agreement TradeRelated on Aspects Intellectual of Property Rights, MarrakeshAgreementEstablishingthe World Trade Organization, Annex 1C,Apr. 15, 1994, 1869U.N.T.S. 299,33 I.L.M. 1125, 1197, reprinted at http://www.wto.orgLenglish/docs e/legal e/27triQs_O l_e.htm (the "TRIPs Agreement"). WIPO Copyright Treaty, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17,at 1, 36 I.L.M. 65 (Geneva,1997),reprinted at htm://www.wiQo.intltreaties/documents/english/word/s-wct.doc [hereinaftercited as "WCT"]; WIPO Performances Phonograms and Treaty,S.Treaty Doc. No. 105-17,at 18, 36 I.L.M. 76 (Geneva,1997), reprinted at h!!Q:/ /www .wiQo.intltreaties/ documents/english/word/ swQQt.doc ("WPPT"). 3 4 (Paristext, 1971),July 24, 1971,25 U.S.T. 1341,T.I.A.S. 7868, 1 B.D.I.E.L. 813, reprinted at http://www.unesco.orgLculture/laws/copyright!html eng/page shtml 1. ("UCC"). 5 Convention theProtection Producers Phonograms for of of Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms (Geneva,1971),Oct. 29, 1971,25 U.S.T. 309, T.I.A.S. 7808, 888 U.N.T.S. 67, reprinted at h!ill://www. wiQo. intlclea/docs/en/wo/wo023 en.htm. 10 The foregoinginternationalagreements guarantee non-U.S.ownersof rights in intellectualproperty substantive rights, which havebeenenacted into law.7 Theseinclude rights to authorizeor prohibit reproduction,8 distribution,9Internet transmission of and other substantial 10 usesof their works and other protectedmaterial. The internationalagreements allow for exceptions limitations to theserights, but only in certain specialcases or that do not conflict with the normal exploitationof the material, and that do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimateinterestsof the rights holders. I I 6 See generallyP. Geller,1 Int'l Copyright Law & Practice, 3[3](b) ~~ (outlining United Statestreatyratifications and implementationin the internationalcopyright area). See17 U.S.C. § 104(b)(foreign authormay claim U.S. copyright if domiciliary or national of BerneConvention,or other treatynation, or if the work was first publishedin the U.S. or a Berne,UCC or other treaty nation), cited in Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium,Inc., 38 F.3d 477,484 (9th Cir. 1994). BerneConvention,art. 9; TRIPsAgreement,art. 9, 14; WCT, art. 1(4) (incorporatingBernerequirements); WPPT, arts.7, 11; UCC, art. IV bis(l); GenevaPhonograms Convention,art. 2. BerneConvention,art. 14(1)(distribution of cinematographic works); TRIPs Agreement,arts. 11, 14(4)(rental of computerprograms, cinematographic works, phonograms); WCT, arts.6-7; WPPT, arts. 8-9, 12-13;UCC, arts.V, VI; Geneva Phonograms Convention,art. 2. 7 8 9 10 These rights,while encompassed moregeneral under provisions earlier of treaties,are embodiedexplicitly in the WIPO InternetTreaties. WCT, art. 8; WPPT, arts. 10, 14. BerneConvention,art. 9(2) (three-step test); TRIPs Agreement,art. 13 (same);WCT, art. 10 (same);WPPT, art. 16 (same);UCC, art. IVbis (exceptions that do not conflict with the spirit and provisionsof Convention);GenevaPhonograms Convention,art. 6 (samekinds of 11 i 11 , The District Court here explicitly found that it was "undisputed"that defendants'softwareand networkswere being usedto carry out direct infringementsof someof theseinternationallyguaranteed exclusiverights. 259 F. Supp.2d at 1034(individuals areengaged direct infringement);id. in at 1037("many if not most individuals" are committing infringement). The TRIPs Agreement,which provides"the highestexpression date to of binding intellectualproperty law in the internationalarena"(United States v. Moghadam,175F.3d 1269, 1272(11th Cir. 1999)(citation omitted)), for the first time also imposesfar reachingrequirements the enforcement in of intellectualpropertyrights.12 Article 41(1) of the TRIPsAgreementrequiresin broad strokesthat: Membersshall ensurethat enforcement procedures as specifiedin this Part areavailableunder their law so as to permit effectiveaction againstany act of infringementof intellectualpropertyrights coveredby this Agreement,including expeditious remediesto prevent infringements and remedies limitations permittedwith respectto literary and artistic works). See generally 17 V.S.C. § 107(fair-useexception);World Trade Organization, Reportof the Panel,UnitedStates- Section110(5)of the U.S.CopyrightAct, CaseNo. 00-2284,(WT/DS160/R, 15 June2000) (interpretingthree-step of BerneConventionart. 9(2) andTRIPs). test "TRIPs stands unique amonginternationalcopyright compactsin the sophistication its enforcement of mechanisms.. . . [G]iven that TRIPs containsenforcement provisionsfar more efficaciousthan thoseextant underB~rne,it can be anticipated that TRIPs will set the international standard enforcement." 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 18.06[B][2], at 18for 67. f 12 12 which constitute deterrent further a to infringements. (emphasis supplied) 13 The United Statesconsistentlyhastakenthe position in its negotiations with WTO partnersthat "effectiveness"of a party's enforcement remediesin this contextmeansenforcement remedies and and that "work in practice." By way of example,the one formal WTO disputein the copyright area that involved the "effectiveness"requirements Article 41 of TRIPs is of instructive.14 that dispute,the United States In requested consultations with Greece the EuropeanCommunitiesunder the WTO dispute-settlement and procedure, May 1998. The United Statesclaimedthat Greeceand the EC in werein violation of, inter alia, Article 41 of TRIPs not only because of The WIPO InternetTreatiesalso containa similar requirement. The WCT providesas follows: "Provisionson Enforcementof Rights. (1) ContractingPartiesundertaketo adopt,in accordance with their legal systems, measures the necessary ensurethe applicationof this Treaty. to (2) ContractingPartiesshall ensurethat enforcement procedures are availableundertheir law so asto permit effective action againstany act of infringementof rights coveredby this Treaty, including expeditious remedies preventinfringementsandremedieswhich constitutea to deterrentto further infringements." WCT, art. 14; WPPT, art. 23. Request Consultations the United States, for by EuropeanCommunities Enforcement Intellectual Property Rightsfor Motion Pictures and of Television Programs,No. 98-1824(WTfDS124/l, IPfD/13, 7 May 1998); Request Consultations the United States,Greece- Enforcementof for by IntellectualProperty Rightsfor Motion Pictures and Television Programs,No. 98-1813(WTfDS125/l, IPfD/14, 7 May 1998). 13 13 14 ,,;;;,;,~ statutoryshortcomings alsobecause remedieson the bookshad had but the no practicaleffect on the problem of widespread piracy. As evidenceof this, the United Statescited the facts that a "significant number"of television stationsin Greece regularly broadcastcopyrighted United Statesfilms and televisionprogramswithout authorizationof the copyrightowners,and that infringementoccurredrepeatedlyand continuouslydespiteefforts by United States rights holdersto pursuetheir claimsin Greece.IS The United Statesclaimedthat "effective remedies against copyrightinfringementdo not appear be providedor enforcedin to Greece"andthat "this situationappears be inconsistent to with the obligations of MembersunderArticles 41 and61 of the TRIPSAgreement." 16 The disputeultimately endedby mutually agreedsettlement, which documented both legislative andlaw-enforcement initiatives undertaken to remedythe piracy at issue,aswell asto monitor the actual effectiveness of the actionstakenandremediesavailable,that is, significantly reducedlevels of televisionpiracy in Greece. * * * 15 SeeRequests Consultations the United States, for by supra. 16 [d. 14 Judicial decisions,suchas the presentone, form an important part of the analysisof whethera particular countryis in compliancewith its TRIPs obligations. Particularlyrelevantto a consideration the TRIPs of requirement "effective action" to preventand deterpiracy, the WTO of AppellateBody in India -- PatentProtectionfor PharmaceuticalProtection andAgricultural ChemicalProductsrepeated principle from a 1926 the Permanent Court of InternationalJusticecaseinstructing that national compliance evaluated be broadly on the basisof numerousfactors,including judicial decisions: From the standpointof InternationalLaw and of the Court which is its organ,municipal laws are merely facts which express will and constitute the the activities of States,in the samemanneras do legal decisionsand administrativemeasures.The Court is certainlynot called upon to interpret the Polish law as such;but thereis nothing to prevent the Court's giving judgment on the question whetheror not, in applying that law, Polandis acting in conformity with its obligationstowards Germanyunderthe GenevaConvention. I? 17 India - PatentProtectionfor Pharmaceuticals Protection and Agricultural ChemicalProducts,No. 95-0000,(WT/DS50/ABIR, 19 Dec. 1997)~ 65, at 25, citing Certain GermanInterestsin Polish Upper Silesia,[1926] PCIJ Rep.,SeriesA, No.7, at 19; seealso id. ~ 67, at 2526, citing Reportof the Panel,UnitedStates-Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930(BISD 36S/345,7 Nov. 1989)(panel conducteddetailed examinationof United Stateslegislationandpractice,including court proceedings). 15 , It is particularly appropriatein this caseto apply the principle that judicial decisions,amongother stateactions,canplaya key role in detenniningwhether"in applying [its] law, [the United States]is acting in confonnity with its obligations" underthe TRIPs Agreement. The decision below rendersunavailableto rights holdersan enforcement mechanism (vicariousor contributory liability) rootedin the statutes, and which hasbeen repeatedly articulatedby the courts,the result of mappingcommon-law principlesto that particular terrain of copyright law. Thus, to the extentthat it canbe demonstrated the decisionbelow, by its applicationof existing that law, works to make"effective action" againstonline infringement "unavailable"to rights holders,including by denying expeditiouspreventive . remedies undennining and deterrence, UnitedStates compliance with its internationalobligations~ould be called into question. A reversal,in contrast,would not only be a proper applicationof domesticlaw, but would comportwell with the U.S.'s obligations to provide effectiveenforcement the copyright area. "GATT [now WTO] in agreements internationalobligations,and absentexpressCongressional are language the contrary,statutesshouldnot be interpretedto conflict with to internationalobligations." Fed. Mogul Corp. v. United States,63 F.3d 1572, 1581(Fed.Cir. 1995),citing AlexanderMurray v. SchoonerCharming 16 Betsy,6 U.S. (2 Cranch.)64, 118(1804) (act of Congress ought never to be construed violate the law of nations,if any otherpossibleconstruction to remains). There is no statutorylanguageor other expression Congressional of intent anywherein the history of United Statesaccession the WTO or the to WIPO InternetTreatiesthat suggests Congress that wishedto derogatefrom the internationalobligationsassumed the United Statesgovernmentin a by way that would deprive internationalrights ownersof effective meansof enforcingtheir rights againstthe sort of infringementsat issuehere. Indeed, the indicia of legislative intent aredirectly to the contrary Congress .18 thereforeshouldbe assumed haveintendedthat "effective enforcement" to 18 Hence,when legislation to implementthe TRIPs Agreementwas presented Congress the U.S. Administration in 1994,the Agreement to by was describedas "establish[ing] comprehensive standards the for protectionof intellectualproperty and the enforcement intellectual of propertyrights in WTO membercountries,"and "ensur[ing] that critical enforcement procedures will be availablein eachmembercountry to safeguard intellectualpropertyrights." UruguayRound Trade Agreement,Texts Of Agreements, ImplementingBill, Statement Of AdministrativeAction And RequiredSupportingStatements, H.R. in Doc. No. 103-316,103dCong.,2d Sess. (1994) at 981, Uruguay Round TradeAgreements Act, at 312. While, understandably, focus of the legislativeconsideration was on how the TRIPs Agreement"will dramaticallyimprove protectionand enforcement U.S. intellectual of propertyrights abroad,"H.R. Rep.No.1 03-826, 103dCong., 2d Sess., pt. 1 (1994) ("Benefits of the UruguayTradeAgreements"),therewas nothing to indicatethat this benefit was to be obtainedat the cost of denyingeffective enforcement domesticand internationalrights for holdersunderU.S. law. 17 asrequiredunder internationalcopyrightsagreements would be availablein the United States,including underthe well-established contributory and vicariousliability doctrines. 19 Amici do not argueherethat any of the particular international intellectualproperty agreements the United Statesshould be given "direct of effect.,,20 The applicationof the "direct effect" doctrine is a complex issue, which is not necessary resolvewith respectto any particular international to agreement here.21 19 As plaintiffs-appellantshavedemonstrated their moving briefs, the in situationrequiring effective enforcement hereis very different from the situationpresented SonyCorp of America v. Universal City Studios, in Inc. 464 U.S. 417, 104S.Ct. 774 (1984). Among other things, the underlyingactivity at issuehereis widespread, massiveinfringing reproductions and distributions,not substantial "fair use," and the intermediaryhas an ongoingrelationshipwith the direct infringers. See MGM Plaintiffs-Appellants' OpeningBrief at 40-43. 20SeegenerallyHopson v. Kreps, 622 F.2d 1375, 1381(9th Cir. 1980) 21 (discussing "direct effect" and self-execution concepts). Seegenerally Geller, 1 Int'l CopyrightLaw & Practice§ 3[4](a), at INT89: "The situation in the United Statesis ambiguous. The United States Congress madeabundantlyclear its intent to leavethe BerneConvention without any self-executingforce. At the sametime, the U.S. Senate acknowledged both the courts' exclusivepower to decide 'the questionof whethera treaty is self-executing'and the courts' responsibility for enforcing 'appropriatedomesticlaw' to protect the rights of Berne claimants. The Congressional intent-in so many words, as the U.S. Copyright Act [17 U.S.C. § 104(c)]now states, precludeany 'reliance to upon. . . the provisionsof the BerneConvention' -cannot thereforebe readto compelan ostrich-like refusalby the courtsto consult any Berne text at all" (citations omitted). 18 I Nevertheless, courtshave viewed internationalobligationslike the WTO TRIPs agreement "persuasiveauthority" in interpretingquestions as that ariseunder its implementinglegislation.22 Indeed,"plaintiffs are free to arguethat Congress would neverhaveintendedto violate an agreement it generallyintendedto implementwithout expresslysaying so." China Steel Corp. v. United States,264 F. Supp.2d 1339,1367(Ct.lnt'l Trade 2003) (reviewingWTO Agreements'obligationsin dumping area),citing Timken v. UnitedStates,240 F. Supp.2d 1228,1238(Ct.lnt'! Trade 2003). 22 PAU S.p.A.v. United States,slip. op. 2003-48,n.13 (Ct. Int'! TradeMay 8, 2003). 19 B. The District Court Decision In Practice Strips International Rights Owners Of An Effective Means Of Enforcing Their Rights. Amici in this caseareprincipally concerned that the District Court's decisionin practiceleavesinternationalrights holderswithout an effective meansof enforcing their rights againstwhat the District Court characterized aswidespread infringementsinvolving millions of individuals, promotedby services that "clearly know that many if not most of thoseindividuals who downloaded their softwaresubsequently it to infringe copyrights" (259 use F. Supp.2d at 1037)and that defendants "may haveintentionally structured their businesses avoid secondary to liability for copyright infringement, while benefiting financially from the illicit draw of their wares" (id. at 1046). If suchknowing facilitators of andcontributorsto massive infringementcannotbe stoppedand orderedto act responsiblywith respect to copyrightedmaterial,what effective enforcement mechanismis realistically available? The District Court decisionleavesfew, if any, practicaloptions. For example,evenif the alternativeof bringing suits againstlargenumbersof individual infringersmay be a possibility for large andwell-fundedrights owners,many of amicis' membersare small or otherwiseinsufficiently fundedfor that everto be a real option. 20 , If unauthorized massreproductionand distribution via the Internet cannotbe stoppedin the United Statesat the hub of such activity -- the services that knowingly promote,assistandprofit from massive infringements--it would put rights ownersin the untenableposition of having to chaseeveryunauthorized copy and transmissionto every one of the othercountriesto which they are distributed. Sucha result would be unnecessary unwarranted this case,and would be potentially and in devastating internationalrights owners. to Copyright law hasdevelopedsecondary liability doctrine preciselyto dealwith suchproblems. As JudgePosner recently said in In re Aimster CopyrightLitig., 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003): Recognizingthe impracticability or futility of a copyright owner's suing a multitude of individual infringers ("chasingindividual consumers time is consumingand is a teaspoon solution to an ocean problem," RandalC. Picker,"Copyright As Entry Policy: The Caseof Digital Distribution," 47 Antitrust Bull., 423,442 (2002», the law allows a copyright holder to suea contributorto the infringementinstead,in effect as an aidor and abettor. In making its judgment in this case,this Court should give careful consideration what remediesare availablefor rights ownersto enforce to their rights effectively againstwhat areprobably the most widespread "' ~ 21 ~.cc,~-- ~ ii, infringementsin history, in a world whereinfringement increasinglylmows no borders.23 23 As notedby theLieberPlaintiffs(opening brief at 20-21),theDistrict Court's finding that "substantialnoninfringing uses"exist for defendants' servicesand softwarebecause peoplemight usethem "in countrieswhere it is legal" (259 F. Supp.2d at 1035)doesnot appearsupported the by record. In any event,it cannotseriouslybe contended that the behavior of any "lowest commondenominator"country-one that might refuseto follow internationalagreements requiring the global protection of intellectualproperty rights-should constrainthosenations that seekto provide the requiredprotections. 22 II. THIS DECISION WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS COURTS OUTSIDE THE U.S. GRAPPLE WITH THESE ISSUES. The decisionbelow will havea deleterious ripple effect on similar cases involving so-called"decentralized"peer-to-peer transmission file and copying servicesin other countries. Although courtsin every country apply their own national laws and look to their own legal precedents and authorities,they also are informed by judicial decisionsin the United States involving new Internet issues. Parties(including amici) do provide information on United Statescourtjudgmentsandraise arguments from United Statescourt decisionsaspersuasive authority in otherjurisdictions. For example,United Statescourtsdealt first with the issues surroundingso-called"centralized"peer-to-peer servicesin the Napster litigation.24Sincethen, cases broughtand decidedso far in JapanandKorea havereachedthe sameresult againstsimilar services.25 both cases, In the partiessubmittedinformation on the decisionsof the District Court andthis Court in Napster,and the reasoningof thesedecisionsappears havebeen to takeninto accountin the foreign courts'judgments. 24 A&MRecords, Inc. v. Napster,Inc., 239 F.3d 1004(9th Cir. 2001), affirmingA&MRecords, Inc. v. Napster,Inc., 114F. Supp.2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000). 25 See Dixon,InternetCopyright A. Litigation:Non-US.Developments, BNA World E-Commerce& IP Report,June2003, at 5,6-7. The following casereportsare takenfrom the referenced article. 23 ,."" In Nippon Columbia Co.,Ltd., et al. v. Yugen Kaisha Nippon MMO,26 defendant JapanMMO operated peer-to-peer a serviceusedby approximately42,000persons, who madeavailableabout 80,000files at any onetime. Like Napster,JapanMMO createdan index of files availablefor download,anduserstransmittedand copiedfiles directly to eachother. The court found,both at the preliminary injunction and "interlocutory judgment" stage,that not only were usersviolating plaintiffs' exclusiveright under the copyrightlaw of ,'making transmittable"plaintiffs' works andrecordings, but JapanMMO itself played a role in the infringing acts. JapanMMO was enjoinedfrom offering the serviceon April 9, 2002, and was found liable on the merits on January29,2003. Damages remainto be assessed. In Asia Media Inc. et at v. Yanget al.,27 membersof the Recording IndustryAssociationof Korea (RIAK) filed civil claims againstthe Korean "file sharing"serviceSoribadaon February8, 2002. On July 9,2002, the court issuedan injunction requiring the peer-to-peer serviceto stop letting 26 2002 (Wa) CaseNo. 4249 (Tokyo District Court, 29th Civil Division, interlocutoryjudgement29 Jan.2003). SeeRIAJ PressRelease, Court decidedJapanMMO, afile-sharing servicecompany, illegality; for Interlocutoryjudgment by the TokyoDistrict Court, httQ://www.riai.com/e/news/20030129.html Jan.2003). (29 No. 2002KAHAP77 (SuwonDistrict Court, Seongnam Branch,First Civil Dep't, 9 July 2002). 24 27 usersdownloadthe plaintiffs' recordings,to stop operatingthe serviceon the $ 28 KoreanData Centre'sservers,and to pay a 170,000guaranty. Similarly, as courtsoutsidethe U.S. begin to look at so-called "decentralized"serviceslike thoseof Streamcast' Morpheus,and Grokster, s United Statescourt decisionscan and will havean important effect internationally. Presentlyon appealbefore the Netherlands SupremeCourt is a case involving the authors'rights societyBuma/Sternra peer-to-peer and operator KazaaBV (which has defaultedin the instantcase,asnotedby the District Courtbelow), on which therewill be further briefing by the Netherlands AdvocateGeneralin September a decisionseveralmonthsfrom now. and The court is evaluatingconflicting rulings from the Amsterdamdistrict court andappellatecourt in a "summaryproceedings"decisioninvolving Kazaa. The Amsterdamdistrict court had found on November29,2001, that Kazaaviolated copyright law by giving usersthe opportunity to download music files by meansof its computerprogramand network without a license, andorderedKazaato take suchmeasures to renderimpossibleany as 28 RIAK alsofiled parallelcriminalproceedings, theprosecutor and indicted the two operators, August 2001, chargingthem with aiding in andabettinginfringement. The criminal casewas dismissedon May 15, 2003,on the groundthat the charges not adequately did specify how Soribada aidedand abettedcopyright infringement. The prosecutorhas appealed dismissalto the High Court, and the appealis pending. this 25 ", communication and copying of the Buma/Stemra repertoire.29 The court of appeals reversed,on the basisof a singleaffidavit from a witnessof Kazaa (the solepieceof evidenceintroducedin the summaryproceedings to the as functioningof the peer-to-peer system),andamongother things seemed to find that so long as the Kazaasystemhadany non-infringing use, it was immunefrom liability .30 Although that casewill be decidedonly on the basisof a very limited evidentiaryrecord and will haveonly limited precedential value, the Netherlands SupremeCourt will considerissuessimilar to thosebefore this Court, and amici fully expectthat the Netherlands AdvocateGeneralwill presentthe holding in the U.S. District Court's decisionon Morpheusand 29 Kazaav. Buma/Stemra, KG 01/2264OdC (AmsterdamCt. of Justice, No. 29 Nov. 2001), rev'd, Kazaa v. Buma/Stemra, No. 1370/01 (Amsterdam Ct. of Appeal, 28 Mar. 2002), appealfiled, No. C 2002/186 (Netherlands Sup. Ct., 23 May 2002). 30 See Thecourtof appeals id. reliedalmost exclusively a last-minute on affidavit of a Prof. E. Huizer-presented not to the District Court but to the court of appeals underDutch proceduralrules-who arguedthat Kazaalackedcontrol over the systemit had createdand that its software had usesother than to infringe copyright. Due to the natureand appeal processfor such 'summaryproceedings'in the Netherlands,facts contradictoryto thosepresented Prof. Huizer were not considered by by the Appellate Court (and indeedcould still be presented any in proceedings the merits). SeeDixon, supra note 25, at 7. Proceedings on on the merits would be considered novo. de 26 c~ ;.,...; Groksteraspart of the analysisthat the Dutch court shouldconsiderin making its decision. As courtslike theseoutsidethe U.S. begin consideringInternet issues involving the new generationof peer-to-peer serviceslike thoseof Morpheus andGrokster,it is in the interestof amici and all affectedparties that the U.S. cases this areaprovide helpful analysisand clear guidanceon how in massiveinfringementson serviceslike thesecanbe stopped,and in particular,how key enablersand facilitators suchas defendants and can shouldbe held responsible. This will help to promoteconsistent internationaltreatmentof Internet-based activities, a key goal of the evolving internationaltreaty structurein the intellectualproperty field. Only after effective and consistent enforcement mechanisms in place againstinfringement can are the legitimateon-line use of copyrightedmaterialsultimately and bestbe developed maintainedin the internationalarena. and 27 CONCLUSION For all the foregoingreasons, amici respectfully submit that this Court reversethejudgment of the District Court below. Dated: August 25,2003 RespectfullySubmitted, HANK L. GOLDSMITH (applicationto follow) DA Vill. R. SCHEillEMANTLE (presentlyadmitted) PROSKAUERROSE LLP By: Hank L. Goldsmith Attorneys the Bureau for CJ.,-~- International des Societes Gerant les Droits d'Enregistrement et de Reproduction M ecanique, International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers, International Confederation of Music Publishers, International Federation of the Phonqgtaphic Industry, International Federation of Actors, International Federation of Film Producers Associations, International Federation of Musicians, International Publishers Association, International Video Federation 2049 CenturyPark East Los Angeles,CA 90067 310.557.2900 (tel.) 310.557.2193 (fax) 28 \ " . J FORM 8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that pursuantto Fed.R. App. P. 29(d) and 32(a)(7)(c)and 9th Cir. Rule 32-lthe attachedamicusbrief is proportionatelyspaced, a has typefaceof 14points or more and containsfewer than 7000 words. Dated: August 25, 2003 C/~j- Hank L. Goldsmith - 29