In Re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit, Inc.
3:19-mc-80005
N.D. Cal.Mar 2, 2020Background
- Watch Tower (Jehovah’s Witnesses) served a DMCA §512(h) subpoena on Reddit to identify a pseudonymous user, “Darkspilver,” who posted (1) an image of a donation solicitation from the November 2018 Watchtower and (2) a reformatted chart summarizing Watch Tower data-collection practices and applicable EU law.
- Reddit removed the solicitation after a DMCA takedown; Darkspilver voluntarily removed the chart; he is a foreign, anonymous Reddit user who posted to a forum for criticizing the organization.
- Watch Tower obtained a clerk-issued DMCA subpoena (asserting copyrights in the magazine and chart); EFF and Reddit moved to quash on behalf of Darkspilver.
- A magistrate judge denied the motion to quash but limited disclosure of identifying information to attorneys-of-record; Darkspilver did not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.
- The district court reviewed de novo, concluded the Reddit posts constituted noninfringing fair use, and granted the motion to quash (finding no DMCA basis to obtain the user’s identity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watch Tower) | Defendant's Argument (Darkspilver/EFF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the magistrate judge authorized to enter a dispositive order? | Magistrate order was valid because Watch Tower consented and proceedings were routine. | Darkspilver never consented; Roell implied-consent doctrine does not apply. | No; magistrate lacked full §636(c) jurisdiction over a dispositive matter; district court reviewed de novo. |
| 2) Does the DMCA §512(h) subpoena properly seek identity when the use may be fair use? | Subpoena was authorized because Watch Tower represented copyrights and alleged copying. | DMCA subpoena cannot issue if the use is noninfringing (fair use). | DMCA subpoena is limited to alleged infringers; because use was fair, subpoena was unauthorized and must be quashed. |
| 3) Did the fair use factors favor Watch Tower or Darkspilver? | Portions and registration support infringement; disclosure may prevent harm to Watch Tower. | Posts were transformative criticism, noncommercial, factual works, limited copying, and posed no market harm. | Fair use factors (purpose/character, nature, amount, market effect) weigh for fair use; posts were noninfringing. |
| 4) Should the court apply an anonymous‑speaker First Amendment balancing test instead of deciding fair use? | (Implicit) First Amendment interests justify careful balancing of disclosure harms. | Fair use doctrine already addresses First Amendment concerns; no need for separate anonymity test. | Court declined to apply broader anonymous‑speaker test and resolved the case on copyright/fair use grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016) (fair use is an authorized, not merely defensive, use and must be considered before issuing takedowns).
- Campbell v. Acuff‑Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (fair use inquiry focuses on transformativeness and purpose/character of use).
- Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (copyright law contains First Amendment accommodations; fair use is central to that balance).
- Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (2003) (consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction may be implied but only in limited, exceptional circumstances).
- Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2003) (Roell’s implied‑consent rule construed narrowly; clear and unambiguous consent required for §636(c)).
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (market effect is a central fair use consideration; use with no demonstrable market harm may be permitted).
- Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003) (uses that alter purpose/context can be transformative even when reproducing exact images).
- Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 725 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2013) (market effect and transformative use guide fair use balancing).
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (anonymity is not protected where the speaker is using anonymity to mask copyright infringement).
- Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing dispositive from non‑dispositive magistrate judge matters for review procedures).