U.S. District Judge Orinda Evans has issued a ruling about the defendants' and plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment in the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. case.
Here's an excerpt:
Overall, the evidence presented does not indicate that Defendants "profited directly from" or "had a direct financial interest in" the infringement alleged by Plaintiffs. There is absolutely no evidence in the record showing that Georgia State benefitted financially from the alleged infringements. At most, if the Court takes the inferential steps suggested by Plaintiffs, any benefit the infringement provides to students constitutes "just an added benefit" rather than a clear "draw" to Georgia State. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the third claim, vicarious copyright infringement and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the third claim. . . .
The record before the Court on the motions for summary judgment does not speak to the question of whether in practice the Current Policy is encouraging improper application of the fair use defense. The Court therefore DENIES both Defendants' and Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment as to the contributory infringement claim. . . .
Going forward, in order to show that Defendants are responsible for the copyright infringements alleged in this case, Plaintiffs must show that the 2009 Copyright Policy resulted in ongoing and continuous misuse of the fair use defense. To do so, Plaintiffs must put forth evidence of a sufficient number of instances of infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights to show such ongoing and continuous misuse. Defendants will have the burden of showing that each specified instance of 2009 Copyright Policy infringement was a fair use. Both sides will be limited to the list of claimed infringements produced in response to the Court's August 11, 2010 and August 12, 2010 orders. The parties are DIRECTED to confer and determine whether further discovery is needed before resolving the remaining contributory infringement claim. Within twenty (20) days, the parties shall present a proposed scheduling order.
Read more about it at "Going Forward with Georgia State Lawsuit."
