Because the screenplay was provided by Doe 1 in PDF format, Tarantino argued, it could not be viewed unless a complete infringing copy was downloaded to the user's computer. Tarantino, in his opposition to Gawker's motion, argued that the complaint's allegations that third parties accessed the screenplay via Gawker's link were sufficient to support a claim of direct infringement to support a claim of contributory infringement against Gawker. Finally, Gawker argued that publishing links to extant copies of Tarantino's work in the context of a news report was a non-infringing fair use pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Moreover, Gawker asserted merely encouraging others to read - but not copy, distribute, or otherwise use - the script on another site was not encouragement of copyright infringement. Gawker argued that contributory infringement could not exist in the absence of direct infringement, and that merely accessing the script by clicking on the link provided by Gawker was not copyright infringement. Gawker filed for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The contributory infringement claim against Gawker is based on Gawker's providing a link to. The complaint further alleges that Doe 1 failed to respond timely or effectively to a DMCA takedown notice. The complaint alleges that Doe 1, also named as "," provided a full copy of the screenplay for download, which copy was either uploaded by Gawker or uploaded by another Doe defendant with Gawker's encouragement, and that other Does committed direct infringement by accessing the copy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |