%PDF-1.3 % 1 0 obj<> endobj 2 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 3 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSJ{9Dd ۋGDt͠7JSM0B_$&GԧОv9g֔a62צexcB%і.Jb\ endstream endobj 4 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 5 0 obj <>stream x%10Cw# (#f*5P ܟړm6xanaΝP\oPP,*JT?/!=Ɗ~x隗H0rNEb^ endstream endobj 6 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 7 0 obj <>stream x%10D=ŖZhc Bh-3hdpF ۽ /S5̥qGCL(YȨ-In%yN)MPπeO3ƥ769 ?cr` endstream endobj 8 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 9 0 obj <>stream x%@D)=C(%'Dd{o}d[5)A`w{gЖ6!aq%e d(qi1/Ű7|uPJMcb endstream endobj 10 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 11 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjw{YDd ۋ#?_3{3hCoK A+c0g#)9b{:8}qsP1^>/Ű7lsuh']ddd endstream endobj 12 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 13 0 obj <>stream x%0{uoJFEfIJ0Q۾ +,~ZsQ3HS{JFS.>=~XwtH0bqN;#df endstream endobj 14 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 15 0 obj <>stream x%10Cw# ($#f*5P ܟ{6kSXN}706P3H=%v%yNoCI?Vi<|H0bvԌEeVh endstream endobj 16 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 17 0 obj <>stream x%10Cw# ($mG(Tk* ܟ{6UXN}0.R 3H=m<Ϗ4d{Ko$gm9cj?ej endstream endobj 18 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 19 0 obj <>stream x%10Cw# (MG(Tk* ܟ{6UXN}08gBX'WJR?>?~Ӑy2.`qvԎ?fHl endstream endobj 20 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 21 0 obj <>stream x%@D)\Dd ۋ#_4PiX:6mQ؃"a,d6IKۥ~*W*N ; N]b3QM?# endstream endobj 22 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 23 0 obj <>stream x%0C 0@SBG(T5P ?-l򒝉w#҃ ZE,`,K͊AT˷ϏD4d{z)5\Z'Z~8 endstream endobj 24 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 25 0 obj <>stream x%@D)\Td ۋ"fy3tVX<f@+LAϡ. cNsb?p@ƈ[󉯴tkO[wu쵥RE3 endstream endobj 26 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 27 0 obj <>stream x%@D)]/R"ZKO!3SAK/,{2)z#CEP:RvX[vⰨs4a8 xMKgvvЧ?6zRK?, endstream endobj 28 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 29 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjwnTd ۋ|t͠7<~jr׆w`=g`[d!u:oVQL)^_!.EʦMqzIg endstream endobj 30 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 31 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjwYTd ۋ|t͠7<~jr׆, a+,dVM9~*)R?CBٴ>.qpaqXޭIg  endstream endobj 32 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 33 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjw)$[^$ޛAI_:+Y,Ud5{@+d0ЖvO91c'K9r C­׼tkOjskCW& endstream endobj 34 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 35 0 obj <>stream x%0CwG SH#f*A((OK=5^<ǾS++Ү?ĥ*X:vKBo}0V<|Itfr sao endstream endobj 36 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 37 0 obj <>stream x%@DSjf>stream x+| endstream endobj 39 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSb!w5$[^$Ѩc{o-dӓ s#eMlg'KWs6:N ᑮF-7~s;Z endstream endobj 40 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 41 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjJH = D4*ޛACo:1~ZrN;"a<䰁6MxW9s,W2 UHi̇ձ*[l endstream endobj 42 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 43 0 obj <>stream x%@D)\Dd ۋ#_4PiX:6䮭=HP BhsT;걤z߾]~pn_>/9_%6_ykO:) endstream endobj 44 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 45 0 obj <>stream x%@D)]/R"ZKO!3{3hEwO2z#C,|);O`-;qXLwϹ[0GG3X_9/ endstream endobj 46 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 47 0 obj <>stream x%@D)\Td ۋ"fy3tVX<a@+LAϡ. cNsb?p@ƈ[󉯴tkO[wu쵥RE3. endstream endobj 48 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 49 0 obj <>stream x%=0D[jĠ2smF#Ǩ ۽}T(Y4dn8@ d02A{ڜ7)Ôíe"d:ވu&]j endstream endobj 50 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 51 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjwnTd ۋ|t͠7<~jrFv`=g`[d!u:oVQL)^_!.EʦMqzIg" endstream endobj 52 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 53 0 obj <>stream x%0CwG SH#f*A((OK=5^<ǾS+Ү?ĥ*X:vKBo}0V<|Itfr sao endstream endobj 54 0 obj[/PDF/Text] endobj 55 0 obj<> endobj 57 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 59 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 115.326 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (PUBLISHED) Tj /F1 19 Tf 84.2 Tz -114.766 -33.9 Td 1.9 Tw (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 66.136 -18 Td 1.2 Tw (FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -66.696 -18 Td () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (A.V., a minor, by his next friend) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Robert Vanderhye; K.W., a minor,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (by his next friend Kevin Wade,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Sr.; E.N., a minor, by her next) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (friend Scott Nelson; M.N., a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (minor, by her next friend Scott) Tj 218.07 -9.6 Td (No. 08-1424) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -36.45 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.3 Td 1.2 Tw (Nelson,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 71.652 -18 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 10.848 -18 Td (v.) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz -82.5 -18 Td .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, LLC,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 75.024 -18 Td (Defendant-Appellee.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 106.596 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (A.V., a minor, by his next friend) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Robert Vanderhye; K.W., a minor,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (by his next friend Kevin Wade,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Sr.; E.N., a minor, by her next) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (friend Scott Nelson; M.N., a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (minor, by her next friend Scott) Tj 218.07 -9.6 Td (No. 08-1480) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -36.45 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.3 Td 1.2 Tw (Nelson,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 76.332 -18 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellees,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 6.168 -18 Td (v.) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz -82.5 -18 Td .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, LLC,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 70.344 -18 Td (Defendant-Appellant.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 111.276 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -145.212 -22.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Appeals from the United States District Court) Tj -10.416 -11.2 Td (for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.) Tj 23.676 -11.2 Td (Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge.) Tj 32.004 -11.3 Td (\(1:07-cv-00293-CMH-BRP\)) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -77.85 m 183.8 -77.85 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -160 m 186.6 -85.7 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -251.3 m 186.6 -177 l s .9 w 0 -258.25 m 183.3 -258.25 l s .9 w 0 -276.25 m 183.8 -276.25 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -358.4 m 186.6 -284.1 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -449.7 m 186.6 -375.4 l s .9 w 0 -456.65 m 183.3 -456.65 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g ET Q endstream endobj 60 0 obj<> endobj 61 0 obj<> endobj 62 0 obj<> endobj 63 0 obj<> endobj 58 0 obj<> endobj 72 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 77 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 82.884 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (Argued: December 4, 2008) Tj 6.99 -26.5 Td (Decided: April 16, 2009) Tj -56.418 -26.3 Td (Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER,) Tj 79.944 -13.3 Td (Circuit Judges.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -113.4 -51.4 Td .26 Tw (Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.07 Tw (opinion. Judge Traxler wrote the opinion, in which Judge) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (Wilkinson and Judge Motz joined.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 120.996 -44.4 Td (COUNSEL) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -120.996 -26.3 Td .95 Tw (ARGUED:) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Robert Arthur Vanderhye, McLean, Virginia, for) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.07 Tw (Appellants/Cross-Appellees. James F. Rittinger, SATTER-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.57 Tw (LEE, STEPHENS, BURKE & BURKE, New York, New) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.16 Tw (York, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz (ON BRIEF:) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Joshua M.) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .6 Tw (Rubins, Justin E. Klein, SATTERLEE, STEPHENS, BURKE) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.75 Tw (& BURKE, New York, New York, for Appellee/Cross-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Appellant.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 123.666 -44.3 Td (OPINION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -123.666 -26.2 Td (TRAXLER, Circuit Judge:) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 0 Tw (Plaintiffs brought this copyright infringement action against) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.03 Tw (defendant iParadigms, LLC, based on its use of essays and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .77 Tw (other papers written by plaintiffs for submission to their high) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .14 Tw (school teachers through an online plagiarism detection service) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.37 Tw (operated by iParadigms. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.37 Tw (501. iParadigms) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.42 Tw (asserted counterclaims alleging that one of the plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.85 Tw (gained unauthorized access to iParadigms' online service in) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.77 Tw (violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -99.35 m 300 -99.35 l s .5 w 0 -177.35 m 300 -177.35 l s .5 w 0 -327.75 m 300 -327.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (2) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 73 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 78 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .95 Tw 0 Tc (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .95 Tw (1030\(a\)\(5\)\(A\)\(iii\) & \(B\)\(i\), and the Virginia Com-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4 Tw (puter Crimes Act, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Va. Code Ann. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4 Tw (18.2-152.1-18.2-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .33 Tw (152.16. The district court granted summary judgment in favor) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4 Tw (of iParadigms on plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .39 Tw (based on the doctrine of fair use. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .39 Tw (107. On the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.16 Tw (counterclaims, the district court granted summary judgment) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.32 Tw (against iParadigms based on its conclusion that iParadigms) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.14 Tw (failed to produce evidence that it suffered any actual or eco-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (nomic damages. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.18 Tw (The parties cross appeal. We affirm the grant of summary) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .94 Tw (judgment on the plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim, but) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .83 Tw (reverse the summary judgment order as to iParadigms' coun-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (terclaims and remand for further consideration.) Tj 146.502 -26.7 Td (I.) Tj -134.502 -26.7 Td .85 Tw (Defendant iParadigms owns and operates "Turnitin Plagia-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 7.01 Tw (rism Detection Service," an online technology system) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.6 Tw (designed to "evaluate[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.6 Tw (] the originality of written works in) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 7.4 Tw (order to prevent plagiarism." S.J.A. 1. According to) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .57 Tw (iParadigms, Turnitin offers high school and college educators) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .16 Tw (an automated means of verifying that written works submitted) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.4 Tw (by students are originals and not the products of plagiarism.) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .96 Tw (When a school subscribes to iParadigms' service, it typically) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.3 Tw (requires its students to submit their written assignments "via) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.5 Tw (a web-based system available at ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (www.turnitin.com) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( or via an) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.75 Tw (integration between Turnitin and a school's course manage-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.01 Tw (ment system." S.J.A. 1-2. In order to submit papers online,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .46 Tw (students "must be enrolled in an active class" and must "enter) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .63 Tw (the class ID number and class enrollment password" supplied) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (by the assigning professor. J.A. 240. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .7 Tw (After a student submits a writing assignment, Turnitin per-) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .4 Tw (forms a digital comparison of the student's work with content) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .25 Tw (available on the Internet, including "student papers previously) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.28 Tw (submitted to Turnitin, and commercial databases of journal) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (3) Tj -202.0119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 74 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 79 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.05 Tw 0 Tc (articles and periodicals." S.J.A. 2.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( For each work submitted,) Tj 0 -13 Td .55 Tw (Turnitin creates an "Originality Report" suggesting a percent-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.47 Tw (age of the work, if any, that appears not to be original. The) Tj 0 -13 Td .58 Tw (assigning professor may, based on the results of the Original-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (ity Report, further explore any potential issues. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.18 Tw (The Turnitin system gives participating schools the option) Tj -12 -13 Td 5.56 Tw (of "archiving" the student works. When this option is) Tj 0 -13 Td .65 Tw (selected, Turnitin digitally stores the written works submitted) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.91 Tw (by students "so that the work becomes part of the database) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (used by Turnitin to evaluate the originality of other student's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .01 Tw (works in the future." S.J.A. 2.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The archived student works are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (stored as digital code, and employees of iParadigms do not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (read or review the archived works. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .72 Tw (To submit a paper to Turnitin, a student must create a user) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.09 Tw (profile on the web site, a process that requires the student to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .82 Tw (click on "I Agree" under the "terms of agreement" or "Click-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6.42 Tw (wrap Agreement." The Clickwrap Agreement provided,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (among other things, that the services offered by Turnitin are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.06 Tw ("conditioned on [the user's] acceptance without modification) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (of the terms, conditions, and notices contained herein," and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (that "[i]n no event shall iParadigms . . . be liable for any . . .) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (damages arising out of or in any way connected with the use) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (of this web site." J.A. 340.) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.71 Tw (When they initiated the lawsuit, the four plaintiffs were) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (minor high school students and thus appeared in this litigation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.87 Tw (via their next friends. Plaintiffs A.V. and K.W. attended) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.98 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The comparison occurs as follows: "[T]he Turnitin system makes a) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .78 Tw (`fingerprint' of the work by applying mathematical algorithms to its con-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .37 Tw (tent. This fingerprint is merely a digital code. Using the digital fingerprint) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.42 Tw (made of the student's work, the Turnitin system compares the student's) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.45 Tw (work electronically to content available on the Internet . . . and student) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (papers previously submitted to Turnitin." S.J.A. 2. ) Tj 10 -13.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .61 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (At the time plaintiffs filed this action, there were approximately 7,000) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.25 Tw (institutional Turnitin subscribers that, in turn, resulted in the submission) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (of about 125,000 papers each day. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -385.55 m 300 -385.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (4) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 80 0 obj<> endobj 75 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 83 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.85 Tw 0 Tc (McLean High School in Fairfax County, Virginia, which) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 2.06 Tw (began using Turnitin in 2006 and opted to have its student) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.03 Tw (papers archived in the Turnitin data base. Plaintiffs E.N. and) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .83 Tw (M.N. attended Desert Vista High School in Tucson, Arizona,) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.07 Tw (which also subscribed to the Turnitin service and elected the) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 2.42 Tw (archiving option. According to the complaint, both schools) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 4.04 Tw (required students to submit their written assignments via) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .3 Tw (Turnitin.com to receive credit; failure to do so would result in) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .78 Tw (a grade of "zero" for the assignment under the policy of both) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.2 Tw (schools.) Tj 12 -24.9 Td 2.28 Tw (Plaintiffs K.W., E.N. and M.N. allege that their teachers) Tj -12 -12.5 Td 2.11 Tw (adhered to school policy and required them to submit their) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 3.04 Tw (written assignments to Turnitin. Using the passwords pro-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.95 Tw (vided by the schools, K.W., E.N. and M.N. submitted their) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .24 Tw (papers, each of which included a "disclaimer" objecting to the) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 3.85 Tw (archiving of their works.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( As requested by the two high) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 2.47 Tw (schools, however, each of these submissions was archived.) Tj 0 -12.6 Td 1.26 Tw (A.V., the fourth plaintiff, did not submit his paper for credit) Tj 0 -12.6 Td 2.43 Tw (in a high school course; instead, he submitted his work to) Tj 0 -12.6 Td .82 Tw (Turnitin using a password designated for students enrolled in) Tj 0 -12.6 Td 2.07 Tw (a college course at the University of California, San Diego) Tj 0 -12.6 Td .73 Tw (\("UCSD"\). The password was provided to A.V. by plaintiffs') Tj 0 -12.6 Td 1.2 Tw (counsel who obtained it by conducting an internet search. ) Tj 12 -24.9 Td 1.05 Tw (According to iParadigms, "no one at iParadigms read[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.05 Tw (] or) Tj -12 -12.6 Td 8.01 Tw (review[ed] the [p]apers submitted" by plaintiffs, and) Tj 0 -12.6 Td 1.77 Tw (iParadigms did not send any "[p]aper at issue in this action) Tj 0 -12.6 Td .69 Tw (. . . to anybody other than the instructor to whom plaintiffs[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .69 Tw (]) Tj 0 -12.6 Td 1.2 Tw (submitted their own papers." S.J.A. 2. ) Tj 12 -24.9 Td 6.66 Tw (Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that iParadigms) Tj -12 -12.6 Td .75 Tw (infringed their copyright interests in their works by archiving) Tj 0 -12.6 Td 1.37 Tw (them in the Turnitin database without their permission.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -24.7 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .31 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Shortly before plaintiffs submitted their assignments to Turnitin, plain-) Tj -10 -10.7 Td .28 Tw (tiffs' counsel applied for and was granted a copyright registration for each) Tj 0 -10.7 Td 1 Tw (paper at issue. ) Tj 10 -13.4 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.32 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Plaintiffs also alleged that the Turnitin system offends copyright law) Tj -10 -10.7 Td .54 Tw (because it "may send a full and complete copy of a student's unpublished) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -432.95 m 300 -432.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (5) Tj -202.0119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 76 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 84 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.8 Tw 0 Tc (district court granted summary judgment to iParadigms on) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 4.92 Tw (two bases. First, the court found that the students and) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 3 Tw (iParadigms entered into binding agreements when the stu-) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.13 Tw (dents clicked on "I Agree," and that the agreements shielded) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.36 Tw (iParadigms from liability arising out of plaintiffs' use of the) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 2.24 Tw (Turnitin website. Furthermore, the court concluded that the) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .04 Tw (disclaimers included on plaintiffs' written submissions did not) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .95 Tw ("modify the Agreement or render it unenforceable." J.A. 50.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -28 Td 1.03 Tw (Second, the court determined that iParadigms' use of each) Tj -12 -14.2 Td .87 Tw (of the plaintiffs' written submissions qualified as a "fair use") Tj 0 -14.2 Td 4.16 Tw (under 17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.16 Tw (107 and, therefore, did not constitute) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.58 Tw (infringement. In particular, the court found that the use was) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1 Tw (transformative because its purpose was to prevent plagiarism) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.55 Tw (by comparative use, and that iParadigms' use of the student) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.6 Tw (works did not impair the market value for high school term) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.2 Tw (papers and other such student works. ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -27.7 Td .38 Tw (manuscript to an iParadigms client anywhere in the world upon request of) Tj 0 -11.9 Td .59 Tw (the client, and without the student's permission." J.A. 22. Plaintiffs, how-) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 1.53 Tw (ever, have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that this occurred) Tj 0 -11.9 Td .12 Tw (with respect to the plaintiffs' works at issue here. Accordingly, we confine) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 1.78 Tw (our review of the copyright issues to iParadigms' practice of archiving) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 1 Tw (documents. ) Tj 10 -14.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .17 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Plaintiffs offered two other theories upon which the district court could) Tj -10 -11.9 Td 4.13 Tw (find the Clickwrap Agreement unenforceable, which the court also) Tj 0 -11.9 Td .18 Tw (rejected. First, the district court disagreed that the agreement was an unen-) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 3.43 Tw (forceable adhesion contract, finding no evidence that plaintiffs were) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 1.61 Tw (coerced by iParadigms \(as opposed to the schools\). Second, the district) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 0 Tw (court refused to void the contract based on the doctrine of infancy, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (Zel-) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 1.74 Tw (nick v. Adams) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 561 S.E.2d 711, 715 \(Va. 2002\) \("[A] contract with an) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 1.32 Tw (infant is not void, only voidable by the infant upon attaining the age of) Tj 0 -11.9 Td .05 Tw (majority."\), concluding that plaintiffs cannot use this doctrine as a "sword") Tj 0 -11.9 Td 2.13 Tw (to void a contract while retaining the benefits of the contract high) Tj 0 -11.9 Td .36 Tw (school credit and standing to bring this action, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (cf.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( 5 Richard A. Lord, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Wil-) Tj 0 -11.9 Td .08 Tw (liston on Contracts) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .08 Tw (9.14 \(4th ed.\) \("When the infant has received consid-) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 1.29 Tw (eration which he still possesses, . . . he cannot, upon reaching majority,) Tj 0 -11.9 Td 1 Tw (keep it and refuse to pay."\) ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -247.75 m 300 -247.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 85 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 87 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 2.1 Tw 0 Tc (iParadigms asserted four counterclaims, but only two are) Tj -12 -13 Td 3.83 Tw (now at issue: \(1\) that plaintiff A.V. gained unauthorized) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.36 Tw (access to Turnitin by using passwords designated for use by) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.33 Tw (college students enrolled at UCSD, in violation of the Com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .68 Tw (puter Fraud and Abuse Act \("CFAA"\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .68 Tw (1030;) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (and \(2\) that plaintiff A.V., based on the aforementioned unau-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (thorized access, violated the Virginia Computer Crimes Act) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (\("VCCA"\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Va. Code Ann. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (18.2-152.3. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.95 Tw (The district court rejected both counterclaims, granting) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (summary judgment to plaintiff A.V. on the grounds that there) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (was no evidence of actual or economic damages suffered by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.14 Tw (iParadigms as a result of the alleged violations under the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (CFAA and the VCCA. ) Tj 92.976 -26 Td (II.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw ( Plaintiffs' Appeal) Tj -80.976 -26 Td .77 Tw (We first consider the summary judgment order as to plain-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (tiffs' copyright infringement claim. The owner of a copyright) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .42 Tw (enjoys "a bundle of exclusive rights" under section 106 of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (Copyright Act, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (Enters.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. 539, 546 \(1985\), including the right to copy,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.8 Tw (the right to publish and the right to distribute an author's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (work, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 547; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .57 Tw (106 \(also including) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (among fundamental rights in copyrighted works rights to dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.21 Tw (play, to perform, and to prepare derivative works\). These) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .42 Tw (rights "vest in the author of an original work from the time of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .65 Tw (its creation." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Harper & Row) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. at 547. "`Anyone who) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,') Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.62 Tw (that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work . . . `is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (an infringer of the copyright.'" ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sony Corp. of America v. Uni-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (versal City Studios, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 464 U.S. 417, 433 \(1984\) \(quoting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (501\(a\)\).) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.62 Tw (The ownership rights created by the Copyright Act, how-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (ever, are not absolute; these rights, while exclusive, are "lim-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (ited in that a copyright does not secure an exclusive right to) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7) Tj -202.0119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 86 0 obj<> endobj 88 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 93 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.88 Tw 0 Tc (the use of facts, ideas, or other knowledge." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bond v. Blum) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.17 Tw (317 F.3d 385, 394 \(4th Cir. 2003\). Rather, copyright protec-) Tj 0 -13 Td .1 Tw (tion extends only to the author's manner of expression. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 17) Tj 0 -13 Td .67 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .67 Tw (102\(b\) \("In no case does copyright protection for an) Tj 0 -13 Td .45 Tw (original work . . . extend to any idea, procedure, process, sys-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.57 Tw (tem, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.9 Tw (regardless of the form in which it is described . . ."\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Feist) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.86 Tw (Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 499 U.S. 340, 344-45) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .08 Tw (\(1991\) \("The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.74 Tw (no author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates.") Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (\(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted\)\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.12 Tw (Moreover, the copyright owner's rights are subject to sev-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (eral exceptions enumerated by the Copyright Act. "[T]he defi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (nition of exclusive rights in ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.63 Tw (106 of the [Copyright] Act is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (prefaced by the words `subject to sections 107 through [122].') Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (Those sections describe a variety of uses of copyrighted mate-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .42 Tw (rial that `are not infringements of copyright' `notwithstanding) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (the provisions of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.14 Tw (106.'" ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sony) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 464 U.S. at 447 \(quoting 17) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (106\).) Tj 12 -26 Td .42 Tw (One of these statutory exceptions codifies the common-law) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw ("fair use" doctrine, which "allows the public to use not only) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (facts and ideas contained in a copyrighted work, but also) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (expression itself in certain circumstances." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Eldred v. Ashcroft) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (537 U.S. 186, 219 \(2003\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.45 Tw (Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. 569, 577 \(1994\) \("Congress meant ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.45 Tw (107 to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.81 Tw (restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use . . . and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .08 Tw (intended that courts continue the common-law tradition of fair) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (use adjudication." \(internal quotation marks omitted\)\). "From) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (fulfill copyright's very purpose, `[t]o promote the Progress of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (Science and useful Arts . . . .'" ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. at 575) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (\(quoting U.S. Const., Art. I, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .6 Tw (8, cl. 8\). Courts have tradition-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (ally regarded "fair use" of a copyrighted work as "a privilege) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.27 Tw (in others than the owner of the copyright to use the copy-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (righted material in a reasonable manner without his consent.") Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (8) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 89 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 94 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.51 Tw 0 Tc (Harper & Row) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. at 549 \(internal quotation marks) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (omitted\).) Tj 12 -26 Td .97 Tw (Thus, the copyright owner's "monopoly . . . is limited and) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (subject to a list of statutory exceptions, including the excep-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (tion for fair use provided in 17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .21 Tw (107." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 317 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (at 393 \(internal quotation marks and citation omitted\). A per-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.11 Tw (son who makes fair use of a copyrighted work is not an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (infringer even if such use is otherwise inconsistent with the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (exclusive rights of the copyright owner. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .96 Tw (107) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (\(providing that "the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (an infringement of copyright"\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (cf. ) Tj (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 317 F.3d at 394 \("A) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (fair-use analysis bears relevance only when a challenged use) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (violates a right protected by the Copyright Act."\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.53 Tw (Section 107 provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.95 Tw (reporting, teaching \(including multiple copies for classroom) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (use\), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copy-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .48 Tw (right." 17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .48 Tw (107. Congress provided four nonexclusive) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.02 Tw (factors for courts to consider in making a "fair use" determi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (nation:) Tj 22 -26 Td 1.87 Tw (\(1\) the purpose and character of the use, including) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (nonprofit educational purposes;) Tj 0 -26 Td (\(2\) the nature of the copyrighted work;) Tj 0 -26 Td .57 Tw (\(3\) the amount and substantiality of the portion used) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and) Tj 0 -26.1 Td .13 Tw (\(4\) the effect of the use upon the potential market for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (or value of the copyrighted work.) Tj -22 -26.1 Td 1.37 Tw (17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.37 Tw (107. Section 107 contemplates that the question) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.91 Tw (of whether a given use of copyrighted material is "fair") Tj 0 -13.2 Td .5 Tw (requires a case-by-case analysis in which the statutory factors) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (9) Tj -202.0119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 90 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 95 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.51 Tw 0 Tc (are not "treated in isolation" but are "weighed together, in) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.45 Tw (light of the purposes of copyright." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. at) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (578. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .66 Tw (With these general principles in mind, we consider each of) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (the statutory factors. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26 Td (First Factor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .25 Tw (The first fair use factor requires us to consider "the purpose) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.51 Tw (and character of the use, including whether such use is of a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.") Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .17 Tw (107\(1\). A use of the copyrighted material that has) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (a commercial purpose "tends to weigh against a finding of fair) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (use." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Harper & Row) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. at 562. "The crux of the prof-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.51 Tw (it/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.53 Tw (use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (the customary price." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 12 -26 Td .84 Tw (In assessing the "character" of the use, we should consider) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (the specific examples set forth in section 107's preamble,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.51 Tw ("looking to whether the use is for criticism, or comment, or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.08 Tw (news reporting, and the like," with the goal of determining) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (whether the use at issue "merely supersedes the objects of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (original creation, or instead adds something new, with a fur-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.31 Tw (ther purpose or different character." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (578-79 \(internal quotation marks, alteration and citation omit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (ted\). Courts, therefore, must examine "whether and to what) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (extent the new work is transformative . . . . [T]he more trans-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (formative the new work, the less will be the significance of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .38 Tw (finding of fair use." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 579 \(internal quotation marks omit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (ted\). A "transformative" use is one that "employ[s] the quoted) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.54 Tw (matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (the original," thus transforming it. Pierre N. Leval, Commen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (tary, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Toward a Fair Use Standard) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (1111 \(1990\). ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 91 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 96 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 0 Tw 0 Tc (In considering the character and purpose of iParadigms' use) Tj -12 -13 Td .1 Tw (of the student works, the district court focused on the question) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.15 Tw (of whether the use was transformative in nature. The court) Tj 0 -13 Td .48 Tw (concluded that "iParadigms, through Turnitin, uses the papers) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.83 Tw (for an entirely different purpose, namely, to prevent plagia-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.08 Tw (rism and protect the students' written works from plagiarism) Tj 0 -13 Td .4 Tw (. . . by archiving the students' works as digital code." J.A. 54.) Tj 0 -13 Td .22 Tw (Although the district court recognized that iParadigms intends) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .02 Tw (to profit from its use of the student works, the court found that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (iParadigms' use of plaintiffs' works was "highly transforma-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.02 Tw (tive," J.A. 54, and "provides a substantial public benefit) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (through the network of educational institutions using Turni-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (tin." J.A. 55. Accordingly, the court concluded that the first) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (factor weighed in favor of a finding of fair use.) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.38 Tw (Plaintiffs argue the district court's analysis contained sev-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (eral flaws. First, they suggest that the district court ignored) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (the commercial nature of iParadigms' use of their materials,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (highlighting the fact that iParadigms is a for-profit company) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.14 Tw (that enjoys millions of revenue dollars based on its ever-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.24 Tw (increasing database of student works. Seizing upon the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (Supreme Court's suggestion in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sony) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( that "every commercial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tation of the monopoly privilege that belong to the owner of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.37 Tw (the copyright," 464 U.S. at 451, plaintiffs contend that the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.26 Tw (archiving of their papers cannot constitute a fair use under) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (section 107. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.77 Tw (The district court, however, did not ignore the fact that) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (iParadigms' use of the plaintiffs' works occurred in the com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.71 Tw (mercial context; indeed, the court expressly noted that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .31 Tw ("iParadigms makes a profit in providing this service to educa-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (tional institutions." J.A. 55. But the fact that the disputed use) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (of copyrighted material is commercial is not determinative in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .08 Tw (and of itself. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Sony) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 464 U.S. at 448. As the Second Circuit) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (observed, "[s]ince many, if not most, secondary users seek at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (least some measure of commercial gain from their use, unduly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (emphasizing the commercial motivation of a copier will lead) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (11) Tj -196.5119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 92 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 97 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .42 Tw 0 Tc (to an overly restrictive view of fair use." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (American Geophysi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.5 Tw (cal Union v. Texaco, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 60 F.3d 913, 921 \(2d Cir. 1994\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td .81 Tw (see ) Tj (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. at 584 \(observing that "[i]f . . . com-) Tj 0 -13 Td .67 Tw (merciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fair-) Tj 0 -13 Td 5.12 Tw (ness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.05 Tw (illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.05 Tw (107,") Tj 0 -13 Td 3.02 Tw (which "are generally conducted for profit in this country") Tj 0 -13 Td .21 Tw (\(internal quotation marks omitted\)\). The Court has made clear) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sony) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( did not establish a ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (per se) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( rule that a commercial use) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (barred a fair use finding. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. at 585 \("The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (Court of Appeals' elevation of one sentence from ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sony) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( to a) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (per se) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( rule . . . runs as much counter to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sony) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( itself as to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (long common-law tradition of fair use adjudication."\). Thus,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (although a commercial use finding generally weighs against) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (a finding of fair use, it must "be weighed along with [the]) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (other factors in fair use decisions." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sony) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 464 U.S. at 449) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (n.32. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .81 Tw (In this case, the district court determined that the commer-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (cial aspect was not significant in light of the transformative) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (nature of iParadigms' use. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. at 578-79.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (The district court simply weighed the commercial nature of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (iParadigms' use along with other fair use factors, as is appro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.75 Tw (priate under Supreme Court precedent. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 579) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.51 Tw (\(explaining that "the more transformative the new work, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (less will be the significance of other factors, like commercial-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use"\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.58 Tw (Plaintiffs also argue that iParadigms' use of their works) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.38 Tw (cannot be transformative because the archiving process does) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.86 Tw (not ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (add) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( anything to the work Turnitin merely stores the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.07 Tw (work unaltered and in its entirety. This argument is clearly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (misguided. The use of a copyrighted work need not alter or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (augment the work to be transformative in nature. Rather, it) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .91 Tw (can be transformative in function or purpose without altering) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (or actually adding to the original work. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Perfect 10,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 \(9th Cir. 2007\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.71 Tw (\(concluding that Google's use of copyrighted images in) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (12) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 98 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 100 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.03 Tw 0 Tc (thumbnail search index was "highly transformative" even) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .23 Tw (though the images themselves were not altered, in that the use) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 7.62 Tw (served a different function than the images served\).) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.08 Tw (iParadigms' use of plaintiffs' works had an entirely different) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.41 Tw (function and purpose than the original works; the fact that) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .6 Tw (there was no substantive alteration to the works does not pre-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (clude the use from being transformative in nature. ) Tj 12 -25.3 Td 1.78 Tw (Plaintiffs further contend that, even if iParadigms' use of) Tj -12 -12.7 Td .83 Tw (their works has a transformative purpose, the use itself is not) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 3.46 Tw (transformative if it fails to effect such purpose. Plaintiffs) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2 Tw (assert that there is at least a question of fact as to whether) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.55 Tw (Turnitin effectively prevents plagiarism such that summary) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .07 Tw (judgment is inappropriate. In support of this contention, plain-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .73 Tw (tiffs offered evidence showing that it is possible to defeat the) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 4.33 Tw (Turnitin system by paraphrasing the original copyrighted) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .6 Tw (work and that the system sometimes does not catch even ver-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .4 Tw (batim copying. In other words, because the Turnitin system is) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.37 Tw (not fool-proof, the archiving of plaintiffs' works to compare) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (and detect plagiarism cannot be transformative. ) Tj 12 -25.3 Td .77 Tw (We reject this assertion as well. The question of whether a) Tj -12 -12.7 Td 1 Tw (use is transformative does not rise or fall on whether the use) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.75 Tw (perfectly achieves its intended purpose. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Cf. ) Tj (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.8 Tw (U.S. at 582 \(declining to evaluate the quality of the parody) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.04 Tw (and declaring that "when fair use is raised in defense of par-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.87 Tw (ody, [the threshold question] is whether a parodic character) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.17 Tw (may reasonably be perceived"\). Plaintiffs do not dispute that) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 0 Tw (the Turnitin system does detect some level of plagiarism, even) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.84 Tw (if, as they assert in the complaint, "[t]he Turnitin system is) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.36 Tw (capable of detecting only the most ignorant or lazy attempts) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 6.43 Tw (at plagiarism by students without significant monetary) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .06 Tw (resources." J.A. 21. Whether a better plagiarism detection sys-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.73 Tw (tem could be designed is not important to our analysis of) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.44 Tw (whether the disputed use serves a different purpose or func-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (tion.) Tj 12 -25.3 Td .03 Tw (The district court, in our view, correctly determined that the) Tj -12 -12.8 Td .34 Tw (archiving of plaintiffs' papers was transformative and favored) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (13) Tj -196.5119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 99 0 obj<> endobj 101 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 106 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.79 Tw 0 Tc (a finding of "fair use." iParadigms' use of these works was) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.24 Tw (completely unrelated to expressive content and was instead) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (aimed at detecting and discouraging plagiarism. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26 Td (Second Factor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 3.62 Tw (In considering the nature of the copyrighted work, the) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.17 Tw (Supreme Court has instructed that "fair use is more likely to) Tj 0 -13 Td .26 Tw (be found in factual works than in fictional works," whereas "a) Tj 0 -13 Td .02 Tw (use is less likely to be deemed fair when the copyrighted work) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (is a creative product." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Stewart v. Abend) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 495 U.S. 207, 237) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (\(1990\) \(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted\). This) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.51 Tw (postulate recognizes the notion that a work is entitled to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .65 Tw (greater copyright protection as it comes closer to "the core of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.01 Tw (creative expression." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 317 F.3d at 395. However, if the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.51 Tw (disputed use of the copyrighted work "is not related to its) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (mode of expression but rather to its historical facts," then the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (creative nature of the work is mitigated. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 396. And, in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (fact, the district court concluded that iParadigms' use of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .72 Tw (plaintiffs' works "relate[d] solely to the comparative value of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .02 Tw (the works" and did not "diminish[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .02 Tw (] the incentive for creativity) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (on the part of students." J.A. 55. The district court noted that,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (if anything, iParadigms' use of the students' works fostered) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (the development of original and creative works "by detecting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (any efforts at plagiarism by other students." J.A. 55.) Tj 12 -26 Td .25 Tw (Plaintiffs contend that the district court's application of this) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (factor was flawed in two respects. First, they argue that the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.2 Tw (court failed to account for the fact that their works were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (unpublished. Because an author enjoys the "right to control) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (the first public appearance of his undisseminated expression,") Tj 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (the fair use of an unpublished work is narrower in scope. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Har-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.31 Tw (per & Row) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. at 555; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 564 \("[T]he author's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.52 Tw (right to control the first public appearance of his expression) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.45 Tw (weighs against such use of the work before its release."\). In) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (its order, the district court omits mention of this fact; there-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (fore, plaintiffs suggest that the district court's entire analysis) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (of the second statutory factor is invalid.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (14) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 102 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 107 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 2.27 Tw 0 Tc (We disagree that the lack of an express reference to the) Tj -12 -13 Td .32 Tw (unpublished status of plaintiffs' works undermines the court's) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.25 Tw (analysis under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.25 Tw (107\(2\). Not only has the Supreme Court) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.88 Tw (admonished courts to resist weighing the fair use factors in) Tj 0 -13 Td .22 Tw (isolation, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. at 578, but Congress specif-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.82 Tw (ically provided that "[t]he fact that a work is unpublished) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (upon consideration of all the above factors." 17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .45 Tw (107.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.27 Tw (Therefore, in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we were able to conclude that the intro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (duction into a court proceeding of an original work of fiction) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (constituted fair use under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .37 Tw (107 despite the fact that the copy-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (righted work was unpublished:) Tj 22 -26 Td .66 Tw (That Bond's manuscript is unpublished and contains) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (a stylized mode of expressing his feelings about his-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (torical facts weigh against a finding of fair use. But,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (as ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( instructs, we do not consider the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (107) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (factors in isolation from one another, but we weigh) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (them together in light of the purposes of copyright.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (Where, as here, the use of the work ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (is not related to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.16 Tw (its mode of expression) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( but rather to its historical) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (facts and there is no evidence that the use of Bond's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.55 Tw (manuscript in the state legal proceedings would) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.77 Tw (adversely affect the potential market for the manu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (script, one cannot say the incentive for creativity has) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (been diminished in any sense.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -26 Td .78 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 395-96 \(emphasis added\) \(internal quotation marks and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (citations omitted\). Here, the district court, quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (cluded that iParadigms' use was unconnected to any creative) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (element in plaintiffs' works. Given that the district court drew) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (its language verbatim from a passage in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( discussing the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.81 Tw (fair use of unpublished works of fiction, the district court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (clearly did not ignore the unpublished nature of these works.) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.28 Tw (Moreover, it is clear that iParadigms' use of plaintiffs') Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.32 Tw (works did not have the ") Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (intended purpose) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (" or "incidental) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.91 Tw (effect" of supplanting plaintiffs' rights to first publication.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (15) Tj -196.5119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 103 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 108 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .32 Tw 0 Tc (Harper & Row) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. at 562. This is significant in that the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (primary basis for the close scrutiny courts give the use of an) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.63 Tw (unpublished work is, as previously noted, an "author's right) Tj 0 -13 Td .38 Tw (to control the first public appearance of his expression." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -13 Td .2 Tw (564. iParadigms did not publicly disseminate or display plain-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.52 Tw (tiffs' works and did not send them to any third party "other) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.75 Tw (than the instructor to whom plaintiffs submitted their own) Tj 0 -13 Td .71 Tw (papers." S.A. 2. In fact, the Turnitin digital archiving process) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.16 Tw (does not involve any review of the submitted works at all,) Tj 0 -13 Td 6.82 Tw (even by those at iParadigms. Thus, no employee of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (iParadigms read or reviewed the works submitted by plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.21 Tw (tiffs. We find no basis whatsoever for concluding that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.18 Tw (iParadigms' use of the plaintiffs' papers undermined their) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (right to first publication. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.57 Tw (Plaintiffs contend that the district court's consideration of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.54 Tw (the "nature of the copyrighted works" factor was flawed for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.2 Tw (a second reason: the district court ignored the fact that the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (works in question were works of fiction and poetry, which are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.2 Tw (considered "highly creative" in nature and deserving of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (strongest protection. This argument is unpersuasive as well in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .16 Tw (that the district court expressly acknowledged its obligation to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (consider whether the works in question came within the "core) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (of creative expression." J.A. 55. Rather than ignore it, how-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (ever, the district court simply concluded that even if the plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (tiffs' works were highly creative in nature, iParadigms' use of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (the plaintiffs' works was not related to the creative core of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.05 Tw (works. In concluding that the second factor favored neither) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (plaintiffs nor iParadigms, the district court was merely apply-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.84 Tw (ing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( in which we concluded that the use of an unpub-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (lished work of fiction in a court proceeding constituted fair) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .98 Tw (use because such use was "not related to its mode of expres-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.14 Tw (sion but rather to its historical facts." 317 F.3d at 396.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (iParadigms' use of the works in the caseas part of a digit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (ized database from which to compare the similarity of type-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (written characters used in other student worksis likewise) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (unrelated to any creative component. Thus, we find no fault) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (in the district court's application of the second fair use factor.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (16) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 104 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 109 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (Third Factor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .11 Tw (The third fair use factor requires us to consider "the amount) Tj -12 -13 Td 1 Tw (and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copy-) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.63 Tw (righted work as a whole." 17 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.63 Tw (107\(3\). Generally) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.6 Tw (speaking, "as the amount of the copyrighted material that is) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.36 Tw (used increases, the likelihood that the use will constitute a) Tj 0 -13 Td .11 Tw (`fair use' decreases." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 317 F.3d at 396. But this statutory) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (factor also requires courts to consider, in addition to quantity,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.41 Tw (the "quality and importance" of the copyrighted materials) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (used, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. at 587, that is, whether the portion) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (of the copyrighted material was "the heart of the copyrighted) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.26 Tw (work." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sundeman v. The Seajay Soc'y, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 142 F.3d 194,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.18 Tw (205 \(4th Cir. 1998\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .97 Tw (Although "[c]opying an entire work weighs against finding a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (fair use, . . . it does not ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (preclude) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( a finding of fair use"; there-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .56 Tw (fore, "[t]he extent of permissible copying varies with the pur-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.97 Tw (pose and character of the use." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 205-06 \(internal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (quotation marks omitted\) \(emphasis added\).) Tj 12 -26 Td .23 Tw (The district court found that this factor, like the second fac-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.88 Tw (tor, did not favor either party. The court concluded that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (although iParadigms uses substantially the whole of plaintiffs') Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.12 Tw (works, iParadigms' "use of the original works is limited in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (purpose and scope" as a digitized record for electronic "com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.48 Tw (parison purposes only." J.A. 56. Having already concluded) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (that such use of plaintiffs' works was transformative, the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (trict court concluded that iParadigms' use of the entirety of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (plaintiffs' works did not preclude a finding of fair use.) Tj 12 -26 Td .77 Tw (The plaintiffs contend that the district court erred by refer-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.77 Tw (ring to the transformative nature of iParadigms' use in its) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (analysis of the amount and substantiality of the portion of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (copyrighted work used under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.41 Tw (107\(3\). In our view, the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (trict court did not analytically merge the first and third fair) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (use factors by referring to iParadigms' transformative use of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (the students' works. Plaintiffs' argument, in fact, fails to rec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (ognize the overlap that exists between the fair use factors. The) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (17) Tj -196.5119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 105 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 110 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .67 Tw 0 Tc (first and third factors, for example, take into account to some) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.66 Tw (degree the purpose of the disputed use. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Compare) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 17 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.78 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.78 Tw (107\(1\); and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sundeman) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 142 F.3d at 202 \(explaining that) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.78 Tw ("[t]he `further purpose' and `different character' of [the) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.85 Tw (defendant's use] make it transformative" under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.85 Tw (107\(1\)\),) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td .76 Tw (with ) Tj (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 317 F.3d at 396 \(concluding that ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .76 Tw (107\(3\) did not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.15 Tw (favor plaintiffs because the defendant's "sole purpose and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .64 Tw (intent" was not to use the expressive content in the plaintiffs') Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.35 Tw (works but "to obtain admissions of fact" in a court proceed-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ing\). We find no error in the district court's analysis.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26 Td (Fourth Factor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .13 Tw (Finally, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .13 Tw (107 directs us to examine the market of the copy-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.78 Tw (righted work to determine "the effect of the use upon the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.34 Tw (potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.21 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.21 Tw (107\(4\). The Supreme Court described this factor as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.38 Tw (the "single most important element of fair use," ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Harper &) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.86 Tw (Row) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. at 566, considering that a primary goal of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.04 Tw (copyright is to ensure that "authors [have] the opportunity to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.05 Tw (realize rewards in order to encourage them to create." Leval,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (Toward a Fair Use Standard) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 103 Harv. L. Rev. at 1124. By) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.23 Tw (contrast, "a use that has no demonstrable effect upon the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tive to create." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sony) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 464 U.S. at 450. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.47 Tw (Our task is to determine whether the defendants' use of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.95 Tw (plaintiffs' works "would materially impair the marketability) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (of the work[s] and whether it would act as a market substi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.43 Tw (tute" for them. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 317 F.3d at 396. We focus here not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (upon "whether the secondary use suppresses or even destroys) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (the market for the original work or its potential derivatives,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (but [upon] whether the secondary use ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (usurps the market of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (original work) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 364 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (471, 482 \(2nd Cir. 2004\) \(emphasis added\). An adverse mar-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (ket effect, in and of itself, does not preclude application of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.08 Tw (fair use defense. "The fair use doctrine protects against a) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (18) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 111 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 113 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .83 Tw 0 Tc (republication which offers the copyrighted work in a second-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.91 Tw (ary packaging, where potential customers, having read the) Tj 0 -13 Td .81 Tw (secondary work, will no longer be inclined to purchase again) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.17 Tw (something they have already read." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sundeman) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 142 F.3d at) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (207 \(internal quotation marks omitted\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.88 Tw (The analysis of whether the disputed use offers a market) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.14 Tw (substitute for the original work overlaps to some extent with) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.12 Tw (the question of whether the use was transformative. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.28 Tw (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S. at 591 \(distinguishing a secondary use) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (that simply duplicates an original work in its entirety, thereby) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (superseding it, from a secondary use that is transformative\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.19 Tw (To the extent this issue arises in fair use cases, it often does) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (so when the secondary use at issue involves a scholarly cri-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (tique or parody of the original work. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Campbell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 510 U.S.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .49 Tw (at 592 \("[T]he role of the courts is to distinguish between bit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.52 Tw (ing criticism that merely suppresses demand and copyright) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (infringement, which usurps it." \(internal quotation marks and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.91 Tw (alterations omitted\)\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj (Sundeman) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 142 F.3d at 207) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .38 Tw (\(holding that defendant's critique of a novel "did not have the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.97 Tw (purpose or effect of supplanting the copyrighted work" and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.23 Tw (that its use of the novel was transformative and thus did not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (create a market substitute for the original work\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Davis v. The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (Gap, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 246 F.3d 152, 175 \(2d Cir. 2001\) \(explaining that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw ("[i]f the harm resulted from a transformative secondary use) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (that lowered the public's estimation of the original \(such as a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.11 Tw (devastating review of a book that quotes liberally from the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (original to show how silly and poorly written it is\), this trans-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (formative use will be found to be a fair use, not withstanding) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (the harm"\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.66 Tw (But regardless of whether the defendant used the original) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (work to critique or parody it, the transformative nature of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.04 Tw (use is relevant to the market effect factor. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Suntrust Bank) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .56 Tw (v. Houghton Mifflin Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 268 F.3d 1257, 1274 n.28 \(11th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.06 Tw (2001\) \("Whereas a work that merely supplants or supersedes) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (another is likely to cause a substantially adverse impact on the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (potential market of the original, a transformative work is less) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (19) Tj -196.5119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 112 0 obj<> endobj 114 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 119 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.8 Tw 0 Tc (likely to do so." \(internal quotation marks omitted\)\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Davis) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .28 Tw (246 F.3d at 176 \(noting that "the market effect must be evalu-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .42 Tw (ated in light of whether the secondary use is transformative"\).) Tj 12 -27.5 Td .9 Tw (The district court concluded that iParadigms' Turnitin sys-) Tj -12 -13.9 Td .05 Tw (tem did not serve as a market substitute or even harm the mar-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .95 Tw (ket value of the works, highlighting the deposition testimony) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 2.55 Tw (of the plaintiffs each of whom denied that iParadigms') Tj 0 -13.9 Td 2.13 Tw ("impinged on the marketability of their works or interfered) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.4 Tw (with their use of the works." J.A. 58. The district court also) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 2.85 Tw (noted that, although the pleadings alleged iParadigms' use) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 3.94 Tw (would adversely impact plaintiffs' ability to market their) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .47 Tw (works to other high school students seeking to purchase com-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .22 Tw (pleted term papers or essays, each plaintiff indicated that such) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .93 Tw (transactions were dishonest and that he or she would not sell) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.2 Tw (their original works for submission by other students. ) Tj 12 -27.5 Td 2.28 Tw (Furthermore, the court rejected plaintiffs' contention that) Tj -12 -13.8 Td 3.5 Tw (iParadigms' use would adversely impact the value of the) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.07 Tw (works if a recipient such as a college admissions department) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.2 Tw (or a literary journal used the Turnitin system to verify origi-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 4.9 Tw (nality. Because their works are now archived, plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .44 Tw (argued, the Turnitin system would report that their own origi-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.03 Tw (nal works were plagiarized. In light of how the Turnitin sys-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 5.62 Tw (tem works, the district court rejected the argument as) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.2 Tw (speculative at best:) Tj 22 -27.4 Td 2 Tw (Anyone who is reasonably familiar with Turnitin's) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .83 Tw (operation will be able to recognize that the identical) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .95 Tw (match is not the result of plagiarism, but simply the) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 2.92 Tw (result of Plaintiff's earlier submission. Individuals) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.55 Tw (familiar with Turnitin, such as those in the field of) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.5 Tw (education, would be expecting the works submitted) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.2 Tw (to have been previously submitted. ) Tj -22 -27.4 Td (J.A. 59. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (20) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 115 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 120 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .62 Tw 0 Tc (On appeal, plaintiffs' primary contention is that the district) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.3 Tw (court focused on whether there was evidence of actual dam-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.17 Tw (ages, failing to consider the effect of iParadigms' use on the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.88 Tw ("potential market" for plaintiffs' works.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Clearly, this asser-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.28 Tw (tion is incorrect. The district court considered the potential) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 4.04 Tw (market effects suggested by plaintiffs but concluded that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.28 Tw (plaintiffs' arguments were theoretical and speculative. Plain-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .66 Tw (tiffs' most plausible theory was that iParadigms' archiving of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .15 Tw (their papers impaired the sale of the papers to high school stu-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.47 Tw (dents in the market for unpublished term papers, essays and) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .13 Tw (the like. Undoubtedly, there is a market for students who wish) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .27 Tw (to purchase such works and submit them as their own for aca-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.33 Tw (demic credit.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( And, iParadigms' archiving of such papers on) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.07 Tw (the Turnitin website might well impair the marketability of) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .92 Tw (such works to student buyers intending to submit works they) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (did not author without being identified as plagiarists. ) Tj 12 -26.5 Td .77 Tw (As noted by the district court, however, the plaintiffs testi-) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.72 Tw (fied that they would not sell the works at issue here to any) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.85 Tw (dealer in such a market because such a transaction would) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .12 Tw (make them party to cheating and would encourage plagiarism.) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 5.8 Tw (Furthermore, to the extent that iParadigms' use would) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .37 Tw (adversely affect plaintiffs' works in this particular market, we) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .36 Tw (must consider the transformative nature of the use. Clearly no) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .75 Tw (market substitute was created by iParadigms, whose archived) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.84 Tw (student works do not supplant the plaintiffs' works in the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.1 Tw ("paper mill" market so much as merely suppress demand for) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .67 Tw (them, by keeping record of the fact that such works had been) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .84 Tw (previously submitted. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Cf. ) Tj (Davis) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 246 F.3d at 175 \(noting that) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.42 Tw (fair use occurs where "the harm resulted from a transforma-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.37 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Plaintiffs note emphatically that the fourth statutory fair use factor) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 1.81 Tw ("specifically uses the word `potential' . . . and nowhere uses the word) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .46 Tw (`damage.'" Brief of Appellants at 29. This point of emphasis is somewhat) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .9 Tw (ironic in that the district court did not use the word "damage" either, but) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (did discuss potential market effect. ) Tj 10 -14.1 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.03 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Web sites such as ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (www.ibuytermpapers.com) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, for example, offer com-) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (pleted papers and essays purchased from high school students. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -407.05 m 300 -407.05 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (21) Tj -196.5119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 116 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 121 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .63 Tw 0 Tc (tive secondary use that lowered the public's estimation of the) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 1.64 Tw (original" rather than from a market substitute\). In our view,) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 1.88 Tw (then, any harm here is not of the kind protected against by) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 1.2 Tw (copyright law.) Tj 12 -24.5 Td 1.58 Tw (The plaintiffs offer a few additional theories under which) Tj -12 -12.3 Td .5 Tw (iParadigms' use of their papers could conceivably affect mar-) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .91 Tw (ketability. For example, plaintiffs point to the possibility that) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .33 Tw (if they submitted all or a portion of their own works to a peri-) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .1 Tw (odical for publishing or to a college admissions board, and the) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .21 Tw (magazine or college used Turnitin, then their submitted works) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 2.12 Tw (might potentially be discredited as a product of plagiarism.) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.52 Tw (Like the district court, we conclude that these theories are) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 3.25 Tw (implausible in light of how the Turnitin system generally) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .54 Tw (operates. We find nothing in the record to suggest that any of) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 3 Tw (these scenarios envisioned by plaintiffs are anything more) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.2 Tw (than unfounded speculation. ) Tj 12 -24.5 Td 2.85 Tw (In sum, we conclude, viewing the evidence in the light) Tj -12 -12.4 Td 1.92 Tw (most favorable to the plaintiffs, that iParadigms' use of the) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .15 Tw (student works was "fair use" under the Copyright Act and that) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.22 Tw (iParadigms was therefore entitled to summary judgment on) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.2 Tw (the copyright infringement claim.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj 70.212 -24.6 Td (III.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw ( iParadigms' Cross Appeal) Tj 73.956 -24.6 Td (A.) Tj -132.168 -24.6 Td 2.21 Tw (iParadigms asserted a counterclaim against plaintiff A.V.) Tj -12 -12.4 Td 1.05 Tw (under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act \("CFAA"\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .78 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .78 Tw (1030, a statute generally intended to deter computer) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.07 Tw (hackers.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Although the CFAA is primarily a criminal statute,) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -24.5 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.15 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (In light of our "fair use" analysis, we decline to address the question) Tj -10 -10.6 Td .84 Tw (of whether the terms of the Clickwrap Agreement created an enforceable) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1 Tw (contract between plaintiffs and iParadigms. ) Tj 10 -13.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.42 Tw (9) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, Charlotte Decker, Note, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Cyber Crime 2.0: An Argument to) Tj -10 -10.6 Td 1 Tw (Update the United States Criminal Code to Reflect the Changing Nature) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.99 Tw (of Cyber Crime) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 959, 980-81 \(2008\) \("The CFAA,) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .22 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .22 Tw (1030\(a\)\(5\), is the primary tool used to investigate and prosecute hacking) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1 Tw (crimes."\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -401.75 m 300 -401.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (22) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 117 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 122 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .88 Tw 0 Tc (it permits private parties to bring a cause of action to redress) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .38 Tw (a violation of the CFAA: "Any person who suffers damage or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (civil action . . . to obtain compensatory damages and injunc-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.3 Tw (tive relief or other equitable relief." 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.3 Tw (1030\(g\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.1 Tw (iParadigms alleged that by gaining unauthorized access to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.8 Tw (Turnitin through a password assigned to UCSD students,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.54 Tw (plaintiff A.V. violated ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.54 Tw (1030\(a\)\(5\)\(A\)\(iii\), which prohibited) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.72 Tw (any person from "intentionally access[ing] a protected com-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (puter without authorization, and as a result of such conduct,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .38 Tw (caus[ing] damage," and, by such conduct, caused, in violation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.48 Tw (of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.48 Tw (1030\(a\)\(5\)\(B\)\(i\), "loss to 1 or more persons during any) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .46 Tw (1-year period . . . aggregating at least $5,000 in value." Addi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (tionally, the CFAA imposed this limit: "Damages for a viola-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (tion involving only . . . [) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.7 Tw (1030\(a\)\(5\)\(B\)\(i\)] are limited to) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (economic damages) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (." 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .51 Tw (1030\(g\) \(emphasis added\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .67 Tw (iParadigms offered evidence that when it learned that A.V.) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.16 Tw (was able to register and submit papers as a student of a uni-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (versity in which he was not enrolled and had never attended,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.93 Tw (it feared the possibility of a technical glitch in the Turnitin) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6.71 Tw (system and concluded an investigation was necessary.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (Unaware that A.V. had simply obtained a password posted on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (the Internet, iParadigms assigned several employees to deter-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.24 Tw (mine what happened. According to iParadigms, over the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (course of about one week, numerous man-hours were spent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (responding to A.V.'s use of the UCSD password. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .88 Tw (The district court concluded that iParadigms' counterclaim) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.26 Tw (failed as a matter of law because ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.26 Tw (1030\(g\) limited damages) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .68 Tw (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The CFAA was amended after the district court issued its decision in) Tj -10 -11.1 Td 1.02 Tw (this case. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Pub.L. 110-326, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.02 Tw (204\(a\). These amendments largely reor-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.13 Tw (ganized ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.13 Tw (1030, but left subsection \(g\) essentially intact and do not bear) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .92 Tw (upon the limited issue before the panel whether the district court cor-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .68 Tw (rectly interpreted "economic damages" as that terms is used in ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .68 Tw (1030\(g\).) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .66 Tw (We take no position, of course, as to what effect, if any, the amendments) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.88 Tw (otherwise have on the legal sufficiency of iParadigms' CFAA counter-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (claim. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -399.55 m 300 -399.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (23) Tj -196.5119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 118 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 123 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.22 Tw 0 Tc (for a violation of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.22 Tw (1030\(a\)\(5\)\(B\)\(i\) to "economic damages.") Tj 0 -13 Td 1.48 Tw (The court found that iParadigms "failed to produce any evi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.43 Tw (dence of actual or economic damages," J.A. 64, and "only) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.66 Tw (presented evidence of consequential damages resulting from) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.28 Tw (the steps taken by iParadigms in response to A.V.'s submis-) Tj 0 -13 Td .74 Tw (sions." J.A. 63. Implicit in the district court's conclusion was) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.12 Tw (the assumption that "economic damages" in ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.12 Tw (1030\(g\) does) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (not encompass any "consequential damages" whatsoever. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.12 Tw (iParadigms counters that "economic damages" ought to be) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.9 Tw (accorded its ordinary meaning, which would include conse-) Tj 0 -13 Td .67 Tw (quential damages but exclude recovery for pain and suffering) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.8 Tw (or emotional distress. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Creative Computing v. Getload-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (ed.com LLC) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 386 F.3d 930, 935 \(9th Cir. 2004\) \(concluding) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (that the "economic damages" limitation "precludes damages) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (for death, personal injury, mental distress, and the like" but) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (includes "loss of business and business goodwill"\). We agree) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .68 Tw (that the district court construed the "economic damages" pro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.17 Tw (vision too narrowly. To maintain a civil action under the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (CFAA, a person first must have "suffer[ed] damage or loss by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.23 Tw (reason of a violation of this section." 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.23 Tw (1030\(g\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (The CFAA defines "loss" as "any reasonable cost to any vic-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (tim, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (including the cost of responding to an offense) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, conduct-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .59 Tw (ing a damage assessment, and restoring . . . the system . . . to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.35 Tw (interruption of service." 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.35 Tw (1030\(e\)\(11\) \(emphasis) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (added\). This broadly worded provision plainly contemplates) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (consequential damages of the type sought by iParadigms ) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (costs incurred as part of the response to a CFAA violation,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (including the investigation of an offense. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Modis, Inc.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (v. Bardelli) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 531 F. Supp. 2d 314, 320 \(D. Conn. 2008\) \(noting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (that "the costs of responding to the offense are recoverable") Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (including "costs to investigate and take remedial steps" \(inter-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.42 Tw (nal quotation marks omitted\)\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (SuccessFactors, Inc. v. Softs-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.56 Tw (cape, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 544 F. Supp. 2d 975, 980-81 \(N.D. Cal. 2008\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.32 Tw (\(holding that the cost of investigating and identifying the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (CFAA offense, including "many hours of valuable time away) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (24) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 124 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 126 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .18 Tw 0 Tc (from day-to-day responsibilities, causing losses well in excess) Tj 0 -13 Td .92 Tw (of $5,000," qualified as "cost[s] of responding to an offense") Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (1030\(e\)\(11\)\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.18 Tw (Accordingly, we remand for further consideration of this) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.22 Tw (claim, expressing no opinion as to whether the evidence is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.66 Tw (otherwise sufficient to establish a viable CFAA claim or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (whether the alleged consequential damages were reasonable,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.38 Tw (sufficiently proven, or directly causally linked to A.V.'s) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (alleged CFFA violation. ) Tj 144.498 -26 Td (B.) Tj -132.498 -26 Td 1.8 Tw (iParadigms asserted another counterclaim against plaintiff) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.78 Tw (A.V. under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act \("VCCA"\),) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.23 Tw (which provides that "[a]ny person who uses a computer or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (computer network, without authority and . . . [o]btains prop-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (erty or services by false pretenses . . . is guilty of the crime) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (of computer fraud." Va. Code Ann. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.44 Tw (18.2-152.3. Moreover,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.54 Tw ("[a]ny person who willfully obtains computer services with-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.36 Tw (out authority is guilty of the crime of theft of computer ser-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.23 Tw (vices." Va. Code Ann. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.23 Tw (18.2-152.6. Section 18.2-152.12) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (provides that "any person whose property or person is injured) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .76 Tw (by reason of a violation of [the VCCA] . . . may sue therefor) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (and recover for any damages sustained and the costs of suit.") Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.83 Tw (The factual basis for this counterclaim was essentially the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (same as that for the CFAA counterclaim that A.V., a Vir-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (ginia resident, obtained access to the Turnitin service by using) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (passwords and enrollment codes that A.V. did not have autho-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (rization to use. The district court granted summary judgment) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (to A.V. on iParadigms' VCCA claim, as it had on the CFAA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (claim, based on its conclusion that iParadigms failed to pre-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4 Tw (sent evidence of actual or economic damages caused by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (A.V.'s submission of papers as a UCSD student. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .52 Tw (iParadigms contends that because the district court rejected) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (the CFAA and the VCCA counterclaims for the same reasons,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (the district court was necessarily construing the phrase "any) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (25) Tj -196.5119 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 125 0 obj<> endobj 127 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 128 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.77 Tw 0 Tc (damages" under the VCCA to exclude consequential dam-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.22 Tw (ages. iParadigms suggests that there is no indication in the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.07 Tw (statute that the Virginia General Assembly intended to so) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.57 Tw (limit the meaning of "any damages." Finding nothing in the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (statute to suggest that consequential damages are not available) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.37 Tw (under section 18.2-152.12, we agree that it was error to dis-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3 Tw (miss the VCCA claim solely on this basis. Moreover, we) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.18 Tw (decline A.V.'s invitation to affirm on other grounds, such as) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.27 Tw (the lack of evidence to establish a causal link between the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.52 Tw (submission of A.V.'s paper and any damages, consequential) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (or otherwise.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1.95 Tw (We conclude that the evidence of consequential damages) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .68 Tw (presented by iParadigms came within the "any damages" lan-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .57 Tw (guage of the VCCA, and therefore that the district court erro-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.28 Tw (neously granted summary judgment because there was no) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.32 Tw (evidence of "actual or economic damages." We express no) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.72 Tw (opinion, however, as to whether iParadigms is a "person) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (whose property or person is injured by reason of a violation) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.17 Tw (of [the VCCA]," Va. Code Ann. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.17 Tw (18.2-152.12, or whether) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (this claim is otherwise viable. ) Tj 142.17 -26.2 Td (IV.) Tj -130.17 -26.2 Td 1.44 Tw (For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the dis-) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.41 Tw (trict court granting summary judgment to iParadigms as to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.71 Tw (plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim. As to iParadigms') Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.1 Tw (counterclaims, however, we reverse the grant of summary) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (judgment to plaintiffs and remand for further consideration.) Tj 182.616 -26.2 Td () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (AFFIRMED IN PART,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz .66 -13.2 Td () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (REVERSED IN PART,) Tj 23.868 -13.2 Td (AND REMANDED) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (26) Tj 92.4881 0 Td (A.V. v. ) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (I) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (P) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARADIGMS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw (, LLC) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 64 0 obj<> endobj 65 0 obj<> endobj 66 0 obj<> endobj 67 0 obj<> endobj 68 0 obj<> endobj 69 0 obj<> endobj 70 0 obj<> endobj 71 0 obj<> endobj 81 0 obj<> endobj 82 0 obj<> endobj 56 0 obj<> endobj 129 0 obj<> endobj xref 0 130 0000000000 65535 f 0000000015 00000 n 0000000102 00000 n 0000000178 00000 n 0000000364 00000 n 0000000440 00000 n 0000000625 00000 n 0000000701 00000 n 0000000886 00000 n 0000000962 00000 n 0000001147 00000 n 0000001224 00000 n 0000001411 00000 n 0000001488 00000 n 0000001674 00000 n 0000001751 00000 n 0000001937 00000 n 0000002014 00000 n 0000002200 00000 n 0000002277 00000 n 0000002463 00000 n 0000002540 00000 n 0000002726 00000 n 0000002803 00000 n 0000002989 00000 n 0000003066 00000 n 0000003253 00000 n 0000003330 00000 n 0000003517 00000 n 0000003594 00000 n 0000003781 00000 n 0000003858 00000 n 0000004045 00000 n 0000004122 00000 n 0000004309 00000 n 0000004386 00000 n 0000004573 00000 n 0000004650 00000 n 0000004838 00000 n 0000004915 00000 n 0000005103 00000 n 0000005180 00000 n 0000005367 00000 n 0000005444 00000 n 0000005631 00000 n 0000005708 00000 n 0000005895 00000 n 0000005972 00000 n 0000006159 00000 n 0000006236 00000 n 0000006424 00000 n 0000006501 00000 n 0000006688 00000 n 0000006765 00000 n 0000006952 00000 n 0000006979 00000 n 0000120037 00000 n 0000007025 00000 n 0000014893 00000 n 0000007238 00000 n 0000010210 00000 n 0000011385 00000 n 0000012556 00000 n 0000013723 00000 n 0000114652 00000 n 0000115687 00000 n 0000115926 00000 n 0000116961 00000 n 0000117200 00000 n 0000117257 00000 n 0000117482 00000 n 0000118517 00000 n 0000014994 00000 n 0000017856 00000 n 0000021503 00000 n 0000026722 00000 n 0000030863 00000 n 0000015197 00000 n 0000018059 00000 n 0000021706 00000 n 0000025545 00000 n 0000118759 00000 n 0000119794 00000 n 0000026937 00000 n 0000031078 00000 n 0000035233 00000 n 0000039227 00000 n 0000035438 00000 n 0000039328 00000 n 0000043628 00000 n 0000047067 00000 n 0000050842 00000 n 0000054701 00000 n 0000039533 00000 n 0000043833 00000 n 0000047272 00000 n 0000051048 00000 n 0000054907 00000 n 0000059175 00000 n 0000062976 00000 n 0000059382 00000 n 0000063082 00000 n 0000067057 00000 n 0000071135 00000 n 0000075113 00000 n 0000079118 00000 n 0000063290 00000 n 0000067265 00000 n 0000071343 00000 n 0000075321 00000 n 0000079326 00000 n 0000083363 00000 n 0000087448 00000 n 0000083572 00000 n 0000087556 00000 n 0000090902 00000 n 0000095217 00000 n 0000099336 00000 n 0000103763 00000 n 0000087775 00000 n 0000091121 00000 n 0000095436 00000 n 0000099555 00000 n 0000103972 00000 n 0000108020 00000 n 0000111561 00000 n 0000108219 00000 n 0000111637 00000 n 0000111846 00000 n 0000120142 00000 n trailer <> startxref 120250 %%EOF