Yout’s Claims vs. RIAA ‘Inconsistent’ With DMCA’s ‘Plain Language’: Copyright Alliance

Reversing the district court’s dismissal of Yout’s complaint for a declaration that its YouTube-ripping software isn't a circumvention tool under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (see 2210240004) would “eviscerate critical safeguards” the statute’s Section 1201 provides, said the Copyright Alliance’s amicus brief Thursday (docket 22-2760) in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Reversal also would “thus undermine copyright’s goal to disseminate expressive works in the interests of free expression,” said the brief in support of defendant-appellee the Recording Industry Association of America.

The district court’s “well-reasoned order” dismissing Yout’s complaint correctly said Yout’s stream-ripping service violates the “anti-trafficking provisions” of Section 1201, said the brief. Yout’s “erroneous interpretation” of Section 1201, if adopted by the 2nd Circuit, “would thwart Congress’s intended purposes and would harm and undermine popular methods of disseminating the speech of copyright owners.” including the alliance’s members, it said.

Copyright is an engine of free expression, working “in tandem” with the First Amendment, said the brief. “This salutary purpose depends on ensuring that copyright holders receive a fair return for exploiting their copyrighted works,” it said. In “our digital age,” once a single pirate makes a copy or stream of a copyrighted work available on the internet, “it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to remove before millions (or even billions) of people access the infringed work without cost,” it said.

Massive infringement “impedes free expression,” said the brief. Deprived of a fair return, copyright owners “have less incentive to create and to disseminate expressive works, especially in digital formats,” it said. The “specter of rampant piracy” also inhibits copyright holders “from creating or partnering with new platforms and services that can offer the consuming public broader access to creative works,” it said. Widespread infringement “also increases the copyright owner’s cost of disseminating expressive works, making access to those works more difficult for many cost-conscious consumers,” it said.

In the nearly 25 years since the DMCA’s October 1998 enactment, “the free-speech benefits resulting from Section 1201’s deterrence of digital infringement and unauthorized access have been legion,” said the brief. In challenging the district court’s well-reasoned decision, Yout and its supporting amici “ignore copyright’s unique role in fostering the dissemination of creative content for the public’s benefit,” it said.

As Congress envisioned when enacting the DMCA, Section 1201's prohibitions against circumvention of access controls and trafficking in circumvention tools and services “play a vital role in furthering copyright’s crucial objectives,” said the brief. Section 1201 helps prevent piracy and unauthorized access to copyrighted works “by preserving the incentive for content creators and distributors like the Copyright Alliance’s wide array of members to embrace digital opportunities while continuing to create and disseminate expressive works,” it said.

The statute enables copyright owners “to design innovative business models that benefit consumers,” said the brief. It enables “lower-cost access to a more diverse variety of offerings, including subscription-based access to high-quality, digital entertainment content, on-demand viewing, cloud-based storage and sharing, and secure, authenticated videogame play,” it said. Alliance members’ business models “directly depend upon the types of technological protection measures for which Section 1201 provides protection,” it said.

The fair use and related policy arguments that Yout and its amici proffer are “inconsistent with the plain language of the statute,” said the brief. They do nothing more “than repeat well-worn, erroneous arguments that the courts consistently reject,” it said. As these courts recognize, “the proposed limitations of Section 1201 would hinder, not further, the goal of disseminating expressive speech,” it said. “The district court properly dismissed Yout’s complaint.”