Ellison v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis
357 F.3d 1072 · 2004
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 31 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2007), Freedman Seating Company v. American Seating Company (2005)
38 federal appellate · 31 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 512 (§ 202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. · Clicks Billiards Inc Texas Corporation v. Sixshooters Inc an Arizona Corporation · Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provide protection from liability for: (1) transitory digital network communications; (2) system caching; (3) information residing on systems or networks at the direction of users; and (4) information location tools.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat in-fringers; and (B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures. 4”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is conceivable that Congress [would have] intended that [service providers] which receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity would not, under any circumstances, be able to qualify for the subsection (c) safe harbor. But if that was indeed their intention, it would have been far simpler and much more straightforward to simply say as much. The Court does not accept that Congress would express its desire to do so by creating a confusing, self-contradictory catch-22 situation that pits 512(c)(1)(B) and 512(c)(1)(C) directly at odds with one another, particularly when there is a much simpler explanation: the DMCA requires more than the mere ability to delete and block access to infringing material after that material has been posted in order for the [service provider] to be said to have “the right and ability to control such activity.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.