Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO:

LAWRENCE LESSIG, Plaintiff, v. LIBERATION MUSIC PTY LTD, Defendant.

COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT NATURE OF ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT 1. This is a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and

damages for misrepresentation under Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as codified at 17 U.S.C. 512. 2. This case arises from the defendants improper assertion of copyright

infringement against plaintiff Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor (Professor Lessig). The infringement claim was based on Professor Lessigs posting, on the Internet video website YouTube, of a video recording of a lecture that Professor Lessig delivered at a conference of Creative Commons, a non-profit organization devoted to expanding digital creativity, sharing, and innovation. As a result of defendants assertion of infringement,

YouTube disabled public access to the video. Further legal threats from the defendant forced Professor Lessig to continue to keep the video offline pending a ruling from this Court. 3. Because Professor Lessigs use of the copyrighted material in question is lawful

under the statutory fair use doctrine set forth in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 107, Professor Lessig brings this action to clarify the rights of the parties and to refute the defendants assertions of copyright infringement.
WAI3138551v1

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 11

4.

Professor Lessig also seeks damages under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,

17 U.S.C. 512(f), in compensation for the defendants knowing and material misrepresentation that Professor Lessigs video infringed the defendants copyright interests. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Lawrence Lessig is the director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

at Harvard University and the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He resides in Brookline, Massachusetts. 6. Defendant Liberation Music Pty Ltd (Liberation Music) is a record company

based in Melbourne, Australia. 7. On information and belief, Liberation Music claims to be authorized to enforce

the copyrights of an alternative rock band named Phoenix, which is based in Versailles, France. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This action arises under the copyright laws of the United States, 17 U.S.C. 101

et seq., and Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 512. 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331 and 1338, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201. 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Liberation Music because Liberation

Music intentionally caused harm to Professor Lessig in Massachusetts, issued its copyright threat to Professor Lessig in Massachusetts, and, on information and belief, conducts regular business in Massachusetts. 11. Liberation Music does substantial business in the United States. Liberation Music

products, by artists such as Archie Roach, Jimmie Barnes, and Hunters & Collectors, are widely available for sale in the United States through Amazon.com and iTunes. Liberation Music also does business in the United States by entering into licensing agreements with domestic record companies, such as an exclusive license to Glassnote Entertainment Group LLC and Columbia Records to distribute products by the artist Temper Trap in the United States. 12.
WAI3138551v1

Venue for this action is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2). 2

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 3 of 11

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 13. Professor Lawrence Lessig is an internationally renowned expert on law and

technology, with a special focus on copyright issues and, in recent years, campaign finance and political reform. 14. Professor Lessig has published numerous books and articles on copyright in the

digital age, and served as legal counsel for the plaintiffs in two of the most influential copyright cases in recent years, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), and Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007). 15. Professor Lessig is a co-founder of several nonprofit organizations, including

Creative Commons, which is devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon and share legally. Since it was founded in 2001, Creative Commons has grown to an international movement with over 100 affiliates around the globe. 16. Professor Lessig is a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and

the American Philosophical Association. He has received numerous awards, including the Free Software Foundations Freedom Award, and the Fastcase 50 Award, which recognizes the laws smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries & leaders. 17. Visionaries. 18. Throughout his career, Professor Lessig has endeavored to promote his concerns Professor Lessig has been named one of Scientific Americans Top 50

and ideas to as wide an audience as possible. 19. In addition to his teaching schedule at Harvard Law School, Professor Lessig is a

prominent public speaker. He has delivered lectures in a variety of forums around the world, seeking to educate the public about law, technology, and political reform. 20. Professor Lessig posts many of his lectures on the website YouTube, in order to

help inform the public about issues relating to law, technology, and political corruption.

WAI3138551v1

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 4 of 11

21.

YouTube is a video-sharing website where millions of Internet users post videos

which are then available to others for viewing. These videos range from traditional home recordings of personal events to news reports, advertisements, and television programs. 22. Professor Lessig has uploaded over 50 original lectures to YouTube where,

cumulatively, they have been viewed over 100,000 times. Professor Lessigs Open Lecture 23. On June 4, 2010, Professor Lessig delivered the keynote address at a Creative

Commons conference in Seoul, South Korea. 24. In the 49-minute lecture, titled Open, Professor Lessig discussed the present

and future of cultural and technological innovation. 25. The lecture included several clips of amateur music videos in order to illustrate

cultural developments in the age of the Internet. 26. One set of clips was taken from videos created by amateurs around the world,

each of which depicts groups of people dancing to the same song, Lisztomania, by the band Phoenix. 27. The Lisztomania copycat video phenomenon started when a YouTube user,

called avoidant consumer, posted on YouTube a video combining scenes from several movies, with the song Lisztomania serving as the soundtrack to the video. 28. Inspired by avoidant consumers work, other YouTube users from around the

world, located in places as disparate as Brooklyn and San Francisco as well as Latvia, Kenya, Brazil and Israel, created their own versions of the video, with real people performing the roles of the actors in the original movies, and again with Lisztomania as the soundtrack. 29. Professor Lessig included these clips in the Open lecture to illustrate how

young people are using videos and other tools to create and communicate via the Internet. 30. Professor Lessig refers to this kind of communication as the latest in a time-

honored call and response tradition of communication.

WAI3138551v1

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 5 of 11

The Fair Use Doctrine 31. Pursuant to Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 107, certain uses of

copyrighted works are authorized by law as fair uses. 32. In determining whether the use of a copyrighted work in any particular case is

protected as fair use, the statutory factors to be considered include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 107. 33. Professor Lessigs illustrative use of the clips in question, particularly in the

context of a public lecture about culture and the Internet, is permitted under the fair use doctrine and, therefore, does not infringe the defendants copyright. 34. Professor Lessigs purpose was non-commercial and highly transformative, in

that it was entirely different from Phoenixs original purpose in creating the work. Whereas Phoenixs original purpose was presumably to entertain music fans, and to make money doing so, Professor Lessigs purpose was educational, and neither Professor Lessig nor Creative Commons gained any profit from the illustrative use of the clips in question in the Open lecture. 35. The nature of the original work is creative. However, because the song

Lisztomania was released on April 16, 2009, and the album containing the song was released worldwide on May 25, 2009, Professor Lessigs limited use of brief video clips using Lisztomania as a soundtrack did not compromise Phoenixs or the defendants rights to control the first appearance of the song. 36. The amount used was minimal: Professor Lessig incorporated into his lecture five

clips of videos using the song as a soundtrack. While the song Lisztomania as released by Phoenix is just over four minutes long, the five clips used in the Open lecture ranged in length

WAI3138551v1

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 6 of 11

from only 10 seconds to 47 seconds, no more than needed to illustrate the phenomenon in order to comment upon it. 37. Professor Lessigs use caused no market harm. Professor Lessigs 49-minute

scholarly lecture included only short clips of videos that were set to the song Lisztomania, with Professor Lessig continuing to lecture over the music. The Open lecture is not a market substitute for a sound or video recording of the song Lisztomania and the lecture did not harm any market for the song. 38. On or about June 8, 2013, Professor Lessig arranged to have a video of the

Open lecture posted on YouTube. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Takedown Procedure 39. Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), 17 U.S.C.

512, grants online service providers (like YouTube) protections from secondary copyright infringement liability, so long as they meet certain requirements. 40. One requirement of this DMCA safe harbor is that online service providers

must implement a "notice-and-takedown" system. 41. The DMCA provides that the owner of copyrighted material may submit a

takedown notice to an online service provider that is hosting material that allegedly infringes the copyright held by the issuer of the notice. 42. The DMCA provides that a takedown notice should be in writing and should state,

among other things, that the complaining party has a good faith belief that the use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner or by law. 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3). 43. Upon receipt of a proper takedown notice, a service provider must respond[]

expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(C). 44. The DMCA then provides that the user who posted the allegedly infringing

material that is the subject of the takedown notice may in turn submit a counter-notice contesting the claim of infringement.
WAI3138551v1

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 7 of 11

45.

In order to be valid, the counter-notice must include the users contact

information, a signature, a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification, and the users consent to the jurisdiction of his or her local federal court. 17 U.S.C. 512(g). 46. Once a counter-notice has been submitted, the copyright owner has 10-14

business days to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against the user. If the copyright owner does not do so, the service provider can restore the video without fear of secondary liability for copyright infringement. 47. Section 512(f) of the DMCA also creates a cause of action for the user who

posted the allegedly infringing material against [a]ny person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification. 17 U.S.C 512(f). The Takedown 48. On information and belief, Defendant Liberation Music is a sophisticated music

industry company with extensive experience in copyright law, and with staff who are familiar with the DMCA (including the Section 512 good faith requirements) and with the principles and application of the fair use doctrine. 49. On June 30, 2013, Professor Lessig received a notice from YouTube that his

video posting of the Open lecture had been identified as having content owned or licensed by Viacom and, as a result, had been blocked, pursuant to YouTubes filtering procedures. 50. On information and belief, around the same time, Liberation Music, and/or its

representative, also caused YouTube to block the video. Professor Lessig did not receive a notice of that block, however. 51. In accordance with YouTubes procedures, Professor Lessig filed a notice

disputing the Viacom block, and YouTube restored access to the video. 52. On information and belief, when YouTube was set to restore access to the video,

Liberation Music, and/or its representative, issued a DMCA takedown notice.

WAI3138551v1

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 8 of 11

53.

On or about June 30, 2013, Liberation Music submitted a DMCA takedown notice

to YouTube demanding the removal of the video of the Open lecture from the YouTube website, claiming the video infringed a copyright owned or administered by Liberation Music. On information and belief, before it submitted its DMCA takedown notice, Liberation Music was presented with an express warning that any person who knowingly misrepresents that material or activity is infringing may be subject to liability. 54. As a result of Liberation Musics takedown notice, YouTube shut down public

access to the video of the Open lecture. 55. On June 30, YouTube sent Professor Lessig an email notifying him that it had

removed the video of the Open lecture, pursuant to a complaint from Liberation Music that the material was infringing. The email warned Professor Lessig that repeated incidents of copyright infringement could lead to the deletion of his YouTube account and all videos uploaded to the account. See Notice of Video Removal, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 56. 512(g). 57. 58. 59. YouTube subsequently forwarded the counter-notice to Liberation Music. On July 8, 2013, Liberation Music emailed Professor Lessig directly. The July 8 email stated that Liberation Music would commence legal On July 3, 2013, Professor Lessig submitted a counter-notice pursuant to Section

proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts . . . for copyright infringement against Professor Lessig in 72 hours if he did not retract his counter-notice. 60. The July 8 email further stated that This is your official notice and warning of

the commencement of these proceedings. It also quoted material from YouTubes website regarding the penalties for copyright infringement. See Response to Counter-Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B. 61. On July 10, 2013, in response to Liberation Musics threat of litigation, Professor

Lessig retracted his counter-notice. The video of his Open lecture continues to this date to be removed from the YouTube website.
WAI3138551v1

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 9 of 11

COUNT I [Declaratory Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq. (Declaratory Judgment Act) and the Copyright Act (Title 17 of the U.S. Code)] 62. Plaintiff Professor Lessig incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in this paragraph. 63. There is a real and actual controversy between Professor Lessig and Defendant

regarding whether Professor Lessigs use in his Open lecture of video clips using the song Lisztomania, and his posting of a video of that lecture on YouTube, infringes a copyright that Defendant lawfully owns or administers. 64. Defendants conduct has forced Professor Lessig to choose between sharing his

work and views publicly and risking legal liability. The controversy between Professor Lessig and Defendant is thus real and substantial and demands specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character. 65. Professor Lessig is entitled to declaratory judgment that his use in his Open

lecture of video clips that used Lisztomania as a soundtrack is lawful under the fair use doctrine and does not infringe the Defendants copyright. COUNT II [Violation of Section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act] 66. Professor Lessig incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth in this paragraph. 67. Professor Lessigs use in his Open lecture of video clips that used

Lisztomania as a soundtrack is lawful under the fair use doctrine and does not infringe any copyright that Defendant owns or administers. 68. On information and belief, Defendant knew that the Open lecture did not

infringe its copyright when it sent YouTube the takedown notice regarding the video of the Open lecture. Defendant acted in bad faith when it sent the takedown notice, knowingly and materially misrepresenting that it had concluded that the video was infringing.

WAI3138551v1

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 10 of 11

69.

In the alternative, Defendant should have known, if it had acted with reasonable

care or diligence, that the video of the Open lecture did not infringe Defendants copyright on the date it sent YouTube its complaint under the DMCA. 70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has been injured

substantially and irreparably. Such injury includes, but is not limited to, the financial and personal expenses associated with responding to the claim of infringement, harm to his free speech rights under the First Amendment, and attorneys fees and costs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant as follows: 1. For a declaration that publication of the video recording of Professor Lessigs lecture Open is protected by the fair use doctrine and does not infringe Defendants copyright; 2. For an order enjoining Defendant, its agents, attorneys, and assigns from asserting a copyright claim against Professor Lessig in connection with his lecture Open; 3. 4. 5. For damages according to proof; For costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys fees; and For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: August 22, 2013 Of Counsel: Corynne McSherry Daniel Nazer Mitch Stoltz ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel: (415) 436-9333 Fax: (415) 436-9993
WAI3138551v1

By:

__/s/ Christopher M. Morrison ________ Christopher M. Morrison James L. Tuxbury JONES DAY 100 High Street 21st Floor Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 960-3939 Fax: (617) 449-6999

10

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 11 of 11

Geoffrey S. Stewart Edwin L. Fountain JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W Washington, D.C. 20001-2113 Tel: (202) 879-3939 Fax: (202) 626-1700 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lawrence Lessig

WAI3138551v1

11

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1-1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1-1 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1-2 Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1-2 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 4

:-frR'*F

Date: July 8, 2013 8:03.25 PM EDT To:

From: Liberation Music <youtube@ liberationmusic.com.au> Subject: Fwd: [0-5606000001 266] New Copyright Counter-Notification

Dear Mr Lessig

We

will be commencing legal proceedings against the following for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Lawrence Lessig Brookline, MA 02446

This will commence in 72 hours if this claim is not retracted and the video removed. The process for retraction is as follows: lf the uploader would like to retract his counter notificaton, they may do so by responding directly to the email they received from YouTube confirming that YouTube forwarded the counter to the party that sent the takedown notificaton. lt should go to coovrisht@voutube.com This is your official notice and warning of the commencement of these proceedings

Liberation Music

What are the consequences of copyright infringement?

On YouTube, the consequences of copyright infringement are simple. We comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act(DMCA) and other applicable copyright laws. Under these laws, we remove videos when properly notified that they violate copyright. In addition, copyright ownens may choose to sue for infringement. In the U.S., copyright infringement may

result in statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work and, in some cases, criminal penalties.

Begin forwarded message:

From: YouTube Service <copyriqht@youtub > Subject: Re: [0-5606000001 266] New Copyright Counter-Notification Date: 9 July 20137'30,37 AM ACST
To : loutube @ liberation music.com. au

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1-2 Filed 08/22/13 Page 3 of 4

TnuW
We have received the attached counter-notification in response to a complaint you filed with
us.

We're providing you with the counter-notification and await your notice (in not more than 10 business days) that you've filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the counter notifier's allegedly infringing activity. Such notice should be submitted by replying to this email. lf we do not receive notice from you, we may reinstate the material to YouTube.

lf you have any questions, please contact ukcopvriqht@voutube.com.

Counter-Notification as follows: Videos included

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1-2 Filed 08/22/13 Page 4 of 4

tn

counter-notifcation Display name of uploader: lessig I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I nave a good-faith belief that the material was removed due to a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is located or, if my address is outside the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is located, and will accept service of process from the claimant. Lawrence Lessig Brookline, MA 02446

http ://www.voutu be. com/watch?v=KBTWoCaN Kn4

Help centre

. Emal options . Report spam

@2013 YouTube, LLC 901 CherryAve, San Bruno, CA 94066

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1-3 Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 2

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Lawrence Lessig
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

DEFENDANTS
Liberation Music Pty. Ltd
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
NOTE:

Norfolk

non U.S.

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Christopher M. Morrison James L. Tuxbury J ones Day 100 High Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 960-3939

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 U.S. Government Plaintiff U.S. Government Defendant 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State 1 Citizen of Another State Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 2 3 DEF 1 2 3 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State Foreign Nation 5 6 5 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veterans Benefits 160 Stockholders Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property TORTS PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education PERSONAL INJURY 365 Personal Injury Product Liability 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: 463 Alien Detainee 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty Other: 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement FORFEITURE/PENALTY 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 690 Other BANKRUPTCY 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) OTHER STATUTES 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRSThird Party 26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization Application 465 Other Immigration Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original Proceeding 2 Removed from State Court 3 Remanded from Appellate Court 4 Reinstated or Reopened 5 Transferred from Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict Litigation

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

17 U.S.C. 512.

declaratory judgment regarding lawful use of copyrighted materials by plaintiff

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: Yes No JURY DEMAND: DOCKET NUMBER

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE
DATE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

08/22/2013
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT

/s/ Christopher M. Morrison

APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Print

Save As...

Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1-3 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

(b)

(c)

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 1:13-cv-12028 Document 1-4 Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) Lawrence Lessig v. Liberation Music Pty Ltd.

2. Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local rule 40.1(a)(1)). I. II. 410, 441, 470, 535, 830*, 891, 893, 895, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT. 110, 130, 140, 160, 190, 196, 230, 240, 290,320,362, 370, 371, 380, 430, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 710, 720, 740, 790, 820*, 840*, 850, 870, 871. 120, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 245, 310, 315, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 365, 367, 368, 375, 385, 400, 422, 423, 450, 460, 462, 463, 465, 480, 490, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555, 625, 690, 751, 791, 861-865, 890, 896, 899, 950. *Also complete AO 120 or AO 121. for patent, trademark or copyright cases.

III.

3. Title and number, if any, of related cases. (See local rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior related case has been filed in this district please indicate the title and number of the first filed case in this court.

4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court? YES

9 9 9 9 9

NO

9
(See 28 USC

5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest? 2403) YES If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party? YES NO NO

9 9 9 9 9 9

6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC 2284? YES NO

7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the united states and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (governmental agencies), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)). YES A. NO

If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside? Eastern Division

9 9

Central Division

9 9
YES

Western Division

B.

If no, in which division do the majority of the plaintiffs or the only parties, excluding governmental agencies, residing in Massachusetts reside? Eastern Division Central Division Western Division

8. If filing a Notice of Removal - are there any motions pending in the state court requiring the attention of this Court? (If yes, submit a separate sheet identifying the motions)

NO

(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) ATTORNEY'S NAME Christopher M. Morrison ADDRESS 100 High Street, Boston, MA 02110 TELEPHONE NO. (617) 449-6895
(CategoryForm12-2011.wpd - 12/2011)