We rejected the argument that convenience of accessing copyrighted material is a transformative purpose in American Geophysical Union, et al. v. Texaco[1] as well. That involved photocopying of scientific journal articles for use in laboratories. Texaco there argued that “its conversion of the individual [journal] articles through photocopying into a form more easily used in a laboratory might constitute transformative use.”[2] Notwithstanding the fact that the photocopies often were more convenient or efficient than, for example, buying, borrowing, shelving and carrying about bound volumes of journals, we wrote that “Texaco’s photocopying merely transforms the material object embodying the intangible article that is the copyrighted original work. Texaco’s making of copies cannot properly be regarded as a transformative use of the copyrighted material.”[3]
Also closely aligned with this case are others that dealt with technologies relating to digitized music, mp3s, and music sharing. Defendants in those cases argued that their technologies should be considered fair use because they permitted “space-shifting”– they allowed users to store music in different, more convenient forms that allowed them to listen to it in venues more desirable to them.[4] In other words, the technology enhanced efficiency and convenience. But courts presented with this argument either rejected the idea that space-shifting is a transformative purpose or considered the space-shifting argument relevant only to the question of the commercial nature of the use.[5]
- ↑ 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994).
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ Id. at 923 (citations omitted).
- ↑ See A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended (Apr. 3, 2001), aff’d sub nom. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002).
- ↑ See A&M Records, Inc., 239 F.3d at 1019 (cases holding space-shifting or time-shifting to be fair use inapposite “because the methods of shifting in [those] cases did not also simultaneously involve distribution of the copyrighted material to the general public”); Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The [device at issue] merely makes copies in order to render portable, or ‘space-shift,’ those files that already reside on a user’s hard drive. Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.” (citation omitted)); UMG
7
