Footnote 12
[Cross-posted to SCOTUSblog]
Ed Felten is right to focus on Footnote 12. That's the key footnote that technologists will be waving to say “don't allow the content industry to get into the business of designing our products and services.” If there is no other evidence of intent and the device is capable of substantial noninfringing uses, you can't tag a technology with secondary infringement liability based on mere reluctance to filter.
Another legal-beagle point on this “don't design” argument is that the Court specifically says it is not talking about vicarious infringement. Vicarious infringement is based on “profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it,” according to the Court. Vicarious liability doesn't require intent.
But we're in the contributory infringement box, which is based on “intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement.” So the Court focuses on evidence showing an “affirmative intent” that the product be used to infringe. Contributory infringement looks at active steps evidencing intent, while liability for vicarious infringement might only require a failure to act (such as failure to filter). The classic example given by the Court of active steps is advertisement — which is a corporate message encouraging infringement.
I read the decision as saying that IF there is evidence of advertising AND other marketing and promotional indicia of intent, THEN failure to filter might be relevant. But failure to filter on its own (as Footnote 12 suggests) would never be enough.
Now, of course, it's not hard to do discovery and find evidence of intent. So this gives the content industry substantial ammunition. And that's why this is a balanced opinion that doesn't completely please either side.
Comments
Got something to say?