Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.

Last updated
Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
DecidedMay 11, 2009
Docket nos. 5:08-cv-05780
Citation(s)91 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430
Holding
Case Pending; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Denied; Defendant's Motion for a more definite statement Granted in Part, Denied in Part.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Jeremy D. Fogel
Keywords
Copyright, DMCA, Lanham Act, Trademark, Unfair Competition

Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Power Ventures Inc., a third-party platform, collected user information from Facebook and displayed it on their own website. Facebook claimed violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. [1] According to Facebook, Power Ventures Inc. made copies of Facebook's website during the process of extracting user information. Facebook argued that this process causes both direct and indirect copyright infringement. In addition, Facebook alleged this process constitutes a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Finally, Facebook also asserted claims of both state and federal trademark infringement, as well as a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

Contents

Background

Power Ventures previously operated the domain power.com and used it to create a website that enabled its users to aggregate data about themselves that is otherwise spread across various social networking sites and messaging services, including LinkedIn, Twitter, Myspace, and AOL or Yahoo instant messaging. This aggregation method is embodied in its motto: "all your friends in just one place". [2] Power Ventures wanted to provide a single site for its customers to see all of their friends, to view their status updates or profile pages, and to send messages to multiple friends on multiple sites. [3]

The litigation focuses on Power Ventures alleged "scraping" of content for and from users on Facebook into Power Ventures interface. Facebook sued claiming violations of copyright, DMCA, CAN-SPAM, and CFAA. [4] [5]

Power Ventures and Facebook tried unsuccessfully to work out a deal that allowed Power Ventures to access Facebook's site, through Facebook Connect. In late December 2008, Power Ventures informed Facebook that it would continue to operate without using Facebook Connect. Power Ventures allegedly continued to "scrape" Facebook's website, despite technological security measures to block such access. [4]

Opinion of the Court

Facebook sued Power Ventures Inc. in the Northern District of California. The court's ruling addressed a motion to dismiss the copyright, DMCA, trademark, and UCL claims.

When a court considers a motion to dismiss, it must take the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint as true and construe the Complaint in a manner that is favorable to the Plaintiff. Thus, for a motion to dismiss to succeed, the complaint must lack either a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support the legal theory. [6]

To state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff need only allege

  1. Ownership of a valid copyright and
  2. Copying of original elements of the work. [4]

The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleged that Power Ventures accessed Facebook's website and made unauthorized "cache" copies of it or created derivative works derived from the Facebook website. However, Power Ventures contended that Facebook's copyright allegations are deficient because it is unclear which portions of Facebook's website are alleged to have been copied. Facebook argued that it need not define the exact contours of the protected material because copyright claims do not require particularized allegations. Since Facebook owns the copyright to any page within its system (including the material located on those pages besides user content, such as graphics, video and sound files), Power Ventures only has to access and copy one page to commit copyright infringement. [4]

Facebook conceded that it did not have any proprietary rights in its users' information. Power Ventures users, who own the rights to the information sought, have expressly given them permission to gather this information. [4] [5]

Judge Fogel reasoned that MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs. Inc. indicated that the scraping of a webpage inherently involves the copying of that webpage into a computer's memory in order to extract the underlying information contained therein. Even though this "copying" is ephemeral and momentary, that it is enough to constitute a "copy" under § 106 of the Copyright Act and therefore infringement. [7] Since Facebook's Terms of Service prohibit scraping (and thus, Facebook has not given any license to third parties or users to do so), the copying happens without permission. [5]

MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.

In the MAI case, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of MAI on its claims of copyright infringement and issued a permanent injunction against Peak. The alleged copyright violations included:

  1. Peak's running of MAI software licensed to Peak customers;
  2. Peak's use of unlicensed software at its headquarters; and,
  3. Peak's loaning of MAI computers and software to its customers. [8]

Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs. Inc.

In this particular case, the Court held that Ticketmaster LLC ("Ticketmaster") was likely to prevail on claims of direct and contributory copyright infringement as a result of defendant RMG Technologies Inc. ("RMG") distribution of a software application that permitted its clients to circumvent Ticketmaster.com's CAPTCHA access controls, and use Ticketmaster's copyrighted website in a manner that violated the site's Terms of Use. The Court held that RMG was likely to be found guilty of direct copyright infringement because when RMG viewed the site to create and test its product, it made unauthorized copies of Ticketmaster's site in its computer's RAM. [9]

In the instant case, the Court followed Ticketmaster to determine that Power Ventures' 'scraping' made an actionable "cache" copy of a Facebook profile page each time it accessed a user's profile page. [4]

The elements necessary to state a claim under the DMCA are

  1. Ownership of a valid copyright;
  2. Circumvention of a technological measure designed to protect the copyrighted material;
  3. Unauthorized access by third parties;
  4. Infringement because of the circumvention; and
  5. The circumvention was achieved through software that the defendant either
    1. Designed or produced primarily for circumvention;
    2. Made available despite only limited commercial significance other than circumvention; or
    3. Marketed for use in circumvention of the controlling technological measure. [4]

Power Ventures argued that Facebook's DMCA claim was insufficient using the same arguments listed above. They also argued that the unauthorized use requirement was not met because the users are controlling the access (via Power Ventures site) to their own content on the Facebook website. However, the Terms of Use negate this argument because users are barred from using automated programs to access the Facebook website. While users may have the copyright rights in their own content, Facebook placed conditions on that access. After Power Ventures informed Facebook that it intended to continue their service without using Facebook Connect, Facebook implemented specific technical measures to block Power Ventures' access. Power Ventures then attempted to circumvent those technological measures. As all of the elements of a DMCA claim had been correctly pleaded and supported in the FAC, the motion to dismiss the DMCA claim was denied. [4]

Trademark infringement

Federal

The Lanham Act imposes liability upon any person who

  1. Uses an infringing mark in interstate commerce,
  2. In connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services, and
  3. Such use is likely to cause confusion or mislead consumers. [4] [10]

Facebook stated that they were the registered owner of the FACEBOOK mark since 2004. Furthermore, they alleged that Power Ventures used the mark in connection with Power Ventures business. Facebook never authorized or consented to Power Ventures' use of the mark. Facebook also stated that Power Ventures' unauthorized use of the mark was likely to "confuse recipients and lead to the false impression that Facebook is affiliated with, endorses, or sponsors" Power Ventures. Power Ventures countered that Facebook was required to provide concise information in the Complaint with respect to the trademark infringement allegations, including information about each instance of such use. However, since particularized pleading is not required for trademark infringement claims, Facebook's allegations were sufficient to survive Power Ventures' motion to dismiss the trademark infringement claim. [4]

State (California)

To state a claim of trademark infringement under California common law, a plaintiff need only allege

  1. Their prior use of the trademark and
  2. The likelihood of the infringing mark being confused with their mark. [4]

For the same reasons listed above, the Court also denied Power Ventures' motion to dismiss the state trademark claim.

Unfair Competition Law

California's UCL jurisprudence had previously found Lanham Act claims to be substantially congruent to UCL claims. However, it was unclear as to whether Facebook was relying on it trade dress claims or if it also intended to incorporate other portions of the FAC, such as those dealing with the CAN-SPAM and CFAA claims. In order to promote an efficient docket, the Court granted Power Ventures' motion for a more definite statement. [4]

Ruling

On February 18, 2011 [11] the judge granted the parties' stipulation to dismiss Facebook's DMCA claim, copyright and trademark infringement claims, and claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Only three claims remained for the final order - the violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, violation of the CFAA and California Penal Code.

The district court then granted summary judgment to Facebook on all three of the remaining Facebook claims. The district court awarded statutory damages of $3,031,350, compensatory damages, and permanent injunctive relief, and it held that Vachani 1064 *1064 was personally liable for Power's actions.

A magistrate judge ordered Power to pay $39,796.73 in costs and fees for a renewed Federal Civil Procedure Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Power filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied. Defendants timely appeal both the judgment and the discovery sanctions.

Appeal

Argued and Submitted December 9, 2015 San Francisco, California. Filed July 12, 2016 and Amended December 9, 2016.

The appeals court affirmed the district court's holding that Vachani was personally liable for Power's actions. [12]

Vachani was the central figure in Power's promotional scheme. First, Vachani admitted that, during the promotion, he controlled and directed Power's actions. Second, Vachani admitted that the promotion was his idea. It is undisputed, therefore, that Vachani was the guiding spirit and central figure in Power's challenged actions. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's holding on Vachani's personal liability for Power's actions.

Discovery Sanctions

The court also affirmed discovery sanctions imposed against Power for non-compliance during a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Defendants failed to object to discovery sanctions in the district court. Failure to object forfeits Defendants' right to raise the issue on appeal.

U.S. Supreme Court

On April 24, 2017, Defendant Steven Vachani ("Vachani") filed a motion to stay all proceedings in the case pending resolution of his petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that "once a federal circuit court issues a decision, the district courts within that circuit are bound to follow it and have no authority to await a ruling by the Supreme Court before applying the circuit court's decision as binding authority. [13]

Final Ruling

On May 2, 2017, the United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division issued its final judgement ruled that, having considered the briefing of the parties, the record in the case, and the relevant law, the Court found that Facebook was only entitled to the reduced sum of $79,640.50 in compensatory damages and a permanent injunction. The Court also ordered Defendants to pay the $39,796.73 discovery sanction. [14]

Related Research Articles

bnetd is a communication app that enables users of the online game StarCraft released on March 31, 1998 to connect and chat together. Bnetd was released on April 28, 1998 under the name StarHack and provided near-complete emulation of the original online multiplayer gaming service network. This was accomplished through reverse engineering of the corporate Blizzard Entertainment's Battle.net.

<i>Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.</i> American legal case concerning the DMCA

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 is a legal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the anti-trafficking provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), in the context of two competing universal garage door opener companies. It discusses the statutory structure and legislative history of the DMCA to help clarify the intent of the anti-circumvention provisions and decide who holds the burden of proof. It expresses that the statute creates a cause of action for liability and does not create a property right, and holds that as Chamberlain had alleged that Skylink was in violation of the anti-trafficking provision, it had the burden to prove and failed to show that access was unauthorized and its rights were infringed under the Copyright Act. As Chamberlain incorrectly argued that Skylink had the burden of proof and failed to prove their claim, the court upheld summary judgment in favor of Skylink.

Web scraping, web harvesting, or web data extraction is data scraping used for extracting data from websites. Web scraping software may directly access the World Wide Web using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol or a web browser. While web scraping can be done manually by a software user, the term typically refers to automated processes implemented using a bot or web crawler. It is a form of copying in which specific data is gathered and copied from the web, typically into a central local database or spreadsheet, for later retrieval or analysis.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act, is a part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 U.S. law. It has two major portions, Section 102, which implements the requirements of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and Section 103, which arguably provides additional protection against the circumvention of copy prevention systems and prohibits the removal of copyright management information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC</i>

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, is a U.S. court case between a publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the webhosting, connectivity, and payment service companies. The plaintiff Perfect 10 asserted that defendants CCBill and CWIE violated copyright, trademark, and state law violation of right of publicity laws, unfair competition, false and misleading advertising by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10's magazine and website. Defendants sought to invoke statutory safe harbor exemptions from copyright infringement liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512, and from liability for state law unfair competition, false advertising claims and right of publicity based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

<i>MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.</i> Court case in the United States

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the district court level, MDY had been found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (ToU) governing the World of Warcraft video game software.
The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.

<i>IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.</i> 2008 US District Court case

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132, is an American legal case involving an internet television network named Veoh that allowed users of its site to view streaming media of various adult entertainment producer IO Group's films. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Veoh qualified for the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2006). According to commentators, this case could foreshadow the resolution of Viacom v. YouTube.

<i>Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd.</i> Federal lawsuit

Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. was a federal lawsuit filed on July 18, 2008, by Facebook, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against StudiVZ Ltd., a UK company with its principal place of business in Germany. StudiVZ had launched a website which was alleged to be visually and functionally similar to Facebook's site. Facebook filed a similar lawsuit the same day in the German regional court of Stuttgart and an additional related lawsuit on November 19, 2008, in the German regional court of Cologne. In May 2009 the District Court in California issued an order indicating its view that Germany was the more appropriate forum for the dispute, but withheld issuing a final order on the question until further review of the issues of personal jurisdiction could be addressed. The parties subsequently settled the California case, but continued the litigation in Germany in which the regional court of Cologne held that StudiVZ did not violate any intellectual property rights held by Facebook.

<i>RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Assn, Inc.</i> 2009 court case

RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 2d 913 (2009), is a United States District Court case involving RealNetworks, the movie studios and DVD Copy Control Association regarding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims on the manufacturing and distribution of RealDVD, and a breach of license agreement. The district court concluded that RealNetworks violated the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA when the DVD copying software RealDVD bypasses the copy protection technologies of DVD.

<i>321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc.</i>

321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085, is a district court case brought by 321 Studios seeking declaratory judgment from the court that their DVD ripping software, i.e. DVD Copy Plus and DVD X Copy do not violate the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), or, in the alternative, that the DMCA is unconstitutional because Congress exceeded its enumerated powers, these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and/or violate the First Amendment.

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

<i>Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.</i> US legal case

Ouellette v. Viacom, No. 9:10-cv-00133; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works. This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.

Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Technologies, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, was an infringement case heard by Judge Audrey B. Collins of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

<i>Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc.</i> 2013 Northern District of California Court case

Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 942 F.Supp.2d 962 was a Northern District of California Court case in which the court held that sending a cease-and-desist letter and enacting an IP address block is sufficient notice of online trespassing, which a plaintiff can use to claim a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

References

  1. ↑ "California Penal Code § 502". Leginfo.ca.gov. Archived from the original on 2010-06-28. Retrieved 2012-07-07.
  2. ↑ "Power.com".
  3. ↑ Facebook v. Power Ventures: Facebook Terms of Use Against Scraping , LawUpdates.com (Jul. 20, 2009).
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., No.5:08-cv-05780 , 38( N.D. Cal. May 11, 2009).
  5. 1 2 3 Jason Schultz, Intermediate Copying to Extract Information Archived 2010-02-09 at the Wayback Machine , Cyberlaw Cases (Aug. 31, 2009).
  6. ↑ Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).
  7. ↑ Aaron Perzanowski (2009-12-07). "Fixing RAM Copies". Northwestern University Law Review. SSRN   1441685.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. ↑ MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , 991F.2d511 ( 9th Cir. 1993).
  9. ↑ Ticketmaster, LLC v. RMG Technologies, Inc. , 507F. Supp. 2d1096 ( C.D. Cal. 2007).
  10. ↑ 15 U.S.C.   § 1114(1)(a)
  11. ↑ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4175967/97/facebook-inc-v-power-ventures-inc/ [ bare URL ]
  12. ↑ "Facebook, Inc. V. Power Ventures, Inc".
  13. ↑ "Power Ventures, Inc. V. Facebook, Inc".
  14. ↑ "Facebook, Inc. V. Power Ventures, Inc".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.