The AIME v. UCLA case centered on a copyright infringement case filed by the AIME and Ambrose Video against UCLA for its videostreaming of digitized material for classroom use.
The district court dismissed the case with prejudice in November, 2012 (see "November 26, 2012, memo", below), after previously dismissing it in 2011 but accepting an amended complaint.
As of January 8, 2012, no appeal has yet been filed.
Memo from the Scholarly Communication Office
The court finally issued its order dismissing the case in the AIME v. UCLA case. (The second amended complaint, in case you're counting.) In short, it was another big victory for libraries. The court affirmed all its earlier reasoning, and deepened its reasoning in a few key areas.
Here's a quick summary -- more discussion will be out on all the usual places in the near future, I'm sure.
The full opinion can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/114021241/UCLA-dismissedWithPrej-pdf.
The earlier holdings on interpreting the license language still apply -- the court had said the activity looked like a "performance" not a "distribution". However, the court also examined the "distribution" claim, and made a couple of key holdings: (1) The streamed copy on the end-user's machine is not "fixed" and does not therefore constitute a "distribution". (2) The licensing agreement language prohibiting broadcast or transmission over an "open or Internet system" did not clearly preclude the closed intranet system. Conflict between the marketing brochure and the licensing language created ambiguity which could be exploited by the library.
A very nice interpretation of the DMCA anti-circumvention: Because UCLA had lawful access to the content of the DVD, their circumvention was okay. Oddly, the Court didn't look to the DMCA anti-circumvention exemptions.
The court found that the purpose and nature favored fair use -- no discussion at all.
The second factor -- the type of work -- was neutral because, although these were creative works, they were used in an "informational and educational context".
The third factor was "slightly" against a finding of fair use because the entire work was streamed: The "time shifting" argument was "compelling" and tipped this toward only weighing "slightly" against fair use.
The fourth factor weighed in FAVOR of fair use because someone watching the streaming DVD in a classroom has no effect on their likelihood of buying.
Overall, this is a very helpful analysis from the perspective of libraries.
The various state common law claims were preempted by federal copyright claims.
Last Edited: 2 February 2013