dispute, based on the summary judgment record, "that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists."[1] Veeck's posting of the codes on the Internet could prove harmful by depressing the price and reducing SBCCI's market, thus depriving it of income used in its socially valuable efforts of confecting, promulgating, and revising model codes. Veeck's non-commercial, free publication of the codes exacerbates the detrimental effect on the potential market: By furnishing the codes entirely free of charge, he could destroy the market rather than simply creating effectively competition and price suppression. When viewed in this light, the seen to be potentially more financially deleterious than is commercial piracy or cut-rate competitive availability. Currently, the sale of the copyrighted codes to builders, contractors, design professionals, and other interested parties (1) accounts for one-third of SBCCI's income, (2) provides incentive for SBCCI to stay in business so that small governmental subdivisions, like the ones at issue in this case, can obtain the benefits of a pre-crafted technical code, (3) fosters uniformity, and (4) provides some measure of independence to SBCCI from its members by holding down the extent of SBCCI's reliance on membership dues and assessments.
- ↑ Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 451 (emphasis added)
would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market' for the original.") (quoting 4 Nimmer on Copyright? 13.05[A][4]).
74
