Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT NET-COM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT KLEMESRUD’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST NETCOM AND KLEMESRUD

This case concerns an issue of first impression regarding intellectual property rights in cyberspace. 1 Specifically, this order addresses whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service (“BBS”), and the large Internet 2 access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet, should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS.

Plaintiffs Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) and Bridge Publications, Inc. (“BPI”) hold copyrights in the unpublished and published works of L. Ron Hubbard, the late founder of the Church of Scientology (“the Church”). Defendant Dennis Erlich (“Erlich”) 3 is a former minister of Scientology turned vocal critic of the Church, whose pulpit is now the Usenet newsgroup 4 alfrreli-gion.scientology (“a.r.s.”), an on-line forum for discussion and criticism of Scientology. Plaintiffs maintain that Erlich infringed their copyrights when he posted portions of their *1366 works on a.r.s. Erlich gained his access to the Internet through defendant Thomas Klemesrud’s (“Klemesrud’s”) BBS “support.com.” Klemesrud is the operator of the BBS, which is run out of his home and has approximately 500 paying users. Klemes-rud’s BBS is not directly linked to the Internet, but gains its connection through the facilities of defendant Netcom On-Line Communications, Inc. (“Netcom”), one of the largest providers of Internet access in the United States.

After falling to convince Erlich to stop his postings, plaintiffs contacted defendants Klemesrud and Netcom. Klemesrud responded to plaintiffs’ demands that Erlich be kept off his system by asking plaintiffs to prove that they owned the copyrights to the works posted by Erlich. However, plaintiffs refused Klemesrud’s request as unreasonable. Netcom similarly refused plaintiffs’ request that Erlich not be allowed to gain access to the Internet through its system. Netcom contended that it would be impossible to prescreen Erlich’s postings and that to kick Erlich off the Internet meant kicking off the hundreds of users of Klemesrud’s BBS. Consequently, plaintiffs named Klemesrud and Netcom in their suit against Erlich, although only on the copyright infringement claims. 5

On June 23, 1995, this court heard the parties’ arguments on eight motions, three of which relate to Netcom and Klemesrud and are discussed in this order: (1) Netcom’s motion for summary judgment; (2) Klemes-rud’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; 6 and (3) plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against Netcom and Klemesrud. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants in part and denies in part Netcom’s motion for summary judgment and Klemes-rud’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denies plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

I. Netcom’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement

A. Summary Judgment Standards

Because the court is looking beyond the pleadings in examining this motion, it will be treated as a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss. Grove v. Mead School District, 753 F.2d 1528, 1532 (9th Cir.1985). Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). There is a “genuine” issue of material fact only when there is sufficient evidence such that a reasonable juror could find for the party opposing the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511-12, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Entry of summary judgment is mandated against a party if, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, the party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The court, however, must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving parties, including questions of credibility and of the weight to be accorded particular evidence. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 520, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 2434-35, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991).

B. Copyright Infringement

To establish a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) “copying” *1367 7 of protectable expression by the defendant. Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 954, 108 S.Ct. 346, 98 L.Ed.2d 372 (1987). Infringement occurs when a defendant violates one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). These rights include the right to reproduce the copyrighted work, the right to prepare derivative works, the right to distribute copies to the public, and the right to publicly display the work. 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1)—(3) & (5). The court has already determined that plaintiffs have established that they own the copyrights to all of the Exhibit A and B works, except item 4 of Exhibit A. 8 The court also found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that defendant Erlich copied the Exhibit A and B works and was not entitled to a fair use defense. Plaintiffs argue that, although Net-com was not itself the source of any of the infringing materials on its system, it nonetheless should be liable for infringement, either directly, contributorily, or vicariously. 9 Netcom disputes these theories of infringement and further argues that it is entitled to its own fair use defense.

1. Direct Infringement

Infringement consists of the unauthorized exercise of one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder delineated in section 106. 17 U.S.C. § 501. Direct infringement does not require intent or any particular state of mind, 10 although willfulness is relevant to the award of statutory damages. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

Many of the facts pertaining to this motion are undisputed. The court will address the relevant facts to determine whether a theory of direct infringement can be supported based on Neteom’s alleged reproduction of plaintiffs’ works. The court will look at one controlling Ninth Circuit decision addressing copying in the context of computers and two district court opinions addressing the liability of BBS operators for the infringing activities of subscribers. The court will additionally examine whether Netcom is liable for infringing plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to publicly distribute and display their works.

a. Undisputed Facts

The parties do not dispute the basic processes that occur when Erlich posts his allegedly infringing messages to a.r.s. Erlich connects to Klemesrud’s BBS using a telephone and a modem. Erlich then transmits his messages to Klemesrud’s computer, where they are automatically briefly stored. According to a prearranged pattern established by Netcom’s software, Erlich’s initial act of posting a message to the Usenet results in the automatic copying of Erlich’s message from Klemesrud’s computer onto Netcom’s computer and onto other computers on the Usenet. In order to ease transmission and for the convenience of Usenet users, Usenet servers maintain postings from newsgroups for a short period of time — eleven days for Netcom’s system and three days for Klemesrud’s system. Once on Netcom’s computers, messages are available to Net-com’s customers and Usenet neighbors, who may then download the messages to their *1368 own computers. Netcom’s local server makes available its postings to a group of Usenet servers, which do the same for other servers until all Usenet sites worldwide have obtained access to the postings, which takes a matter of hours. Francis Decl. ¶ 5.

Unlike some other large on-line service providers, such as CompuServe, America Online, and Prodigy, Netcom does not create or control the content of the information available to its subscribers. It also does not monitor messages as they are posted. It has, however, suspended the accounts of subscribers who violated its terms and conditions, such as where they had commercial software in their posted files. Netcom admits that, although not currently configured to do this, it may be possible to reprogram its system to screen postings containing particular words or coming from particular individuals. Netcom, however, took no action after it was told by plaintiffs that Erlich had posted messages through Netcom’s system that violated plaintiffs’ copyrights, instead claiming that it could not shut out Erlich without shutting out all of the users of Klem-esrud’s BBS.

b. Creation of Fixed Copies

The Ninth Circuit addressed the question of what constitutes infringement in the context of storage of digital information in a computer’s random access memory (“RAM”). MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir.1993). In MAI, the Ninth Circuit upheld a finding of copyright infringement where a repair person, who was not authorized to use the computer owner’s licensed operating system software, turned on the computer, thus loading the operating system into RAM for long enough to cheek an “error log.” Id. at 518-19. Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship “fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” 17 U.S.C. § 102 (emphasis added). A work is “fixed” when its “embodiment in a copy ... is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.” Id. § 101. MAI established that the loading of data from a storage device into RAM constitutes copying because that data stays in RAM long enough for it to be perceived. MAI Systems, 991 F.2d at 518.

In the present case, there is no question after MAI that “copies” were created, as Erlich’s act of sending a message to a.r.s. caused reproductions of portions of plaintiffs’ works on both Klemesrud’s and Netcom’s storage devices. Even though the messages remained on their systems for at most eleven days, they were sufficiently “fixed” to constitute recognizable copies under the Copyright Act. See Information Infrastructure Task Force, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights 66 (1995) (“IITF Report”).

c. Is Netcom Directly Liable for Making the Copies?

Accepting that copies were made, Netcom argues that Erlich, and not Netcom, is directly liable for the copying. MAI did not address the question raised in this ease: whether possessors of computers are liable for incidental copies automatically made on their computers using their software as part of a process initiated by a third party. Net-com correctly distinguishes MAI on the ground that Netcom did not take any affirmative action that directly resulted in copying plaintiffs’ works other than by installing and maintaining a system whereby software automatically forwards messages received from subscribers onto the Usenet, and temporarily stores copies on its system. Net-com’s actions, to the extent that they created a copy of plaintiffs’ works, were necessary to having a working system for transmitting Usenet postings to and from the Internet. Unlike the defendants in MAI, neither Net-com nor Klemesrud initiated the copying. The defendants in MAI turned on their customers’ computers thereby creating temporary copies of the operating system, whereas Netcom’s and Klemesrud’s systems can operate without any human intervention. Thus, unlike MAI, the mere fact that Netcom’s system incidentally makes temporary copies *1369 of plaintiffs’ works does not mean Netcom has caused the copying. 11 The court believes that Netcom’s act of designing or implementing a system that automatically and uniformly creates temporary copies of all data sent through it is not unlike that of the owner of a copying machine who lets the public make copies with it. 12 Although some of the people using the machine may directly infringe copyrights, courts analyze the machine owner’s liability under the rubric of contributory infringement, not direct infringement. See, e.g., RCA Records v. All-Fast Systems, Inc., 594 F.Supp. 335 (S.D.N.Y.1984); 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, NimmeR on Copyright § 12.04[A][2][b], at 12-78 to -79 (1995) (“Nimmer on COPYRIGHT”); Elkin-Koren, supra, at 363 (arguing that “contributory infringement is more appropriate for dealing with BBS liability, first, because it focuses attention on the BBS-users relationship and the way imposing liability on BBS operators may shape this relationship, and second because it better addresses the complexity of the relationship between BBS operators and subscribers”). Plaintiffs’ theory would create many separate acts of infringement and, carried to its natural extreme, would lead to unreasonable liability. It is not difficult to conclude that Erlich infringes by copying a protected work onto his computer and by posting a message to a newsgroup. However, plaintiffs’ theory further implicates a Usenet server that carries Erlich’s message to other servers regardless of whether that server acts without any human intervention beyond the initial setting up of the system. It would also result in liability for every single Usenet server in the worldwide link of computers transmitting Erlich’s message to every other computer. These parties, who are liable under plaintiffs’ theory, do no more *1370 than operate or implement a system that is essential if Usenet messages are to be widely distributed. There is no need to construe the Act to make all of these parties infring-ers. Although copyright is a strict liability statute, there should still be some element of volition or causation which is lacking where a defendant’s system is merely used to create a copy by a third party.

Plaintiffs point out that the infringing copies resided for eleven days on Netcom’s computer and were sent out from it onto the “Information Superhighway.” However, under plaintiffs’ theory, any storage of a copy that occurs in the process of sending a message to the Usenet is an infringement. While it is possible that less “damage” would have been done if Netcom had heeded plaintiffs’ warnings and acted to prevent Erlich’s message from being forwarded, 13 this is not relevant to its direct liability for copying. The same argument is true of Klemesrud and any Usenet server. Whether a defendant makes a direct copy that constitutes infringement cannot depend on whether it received a warning to delete the message. See D.C. Comics, Inc. v. Mini Gift, 912 F.2d 29, 35 (2d Cir.1990). This distinction may be relevant to contributory infringement, however, where knowledge is an element. See infra part I.B.2.a.

The court will now consider two district court opinions that have addressed the liability of BBS operators for infringing files uploaded by subscribers.

d. Playboy Case

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena involved a suit against the operator of a small BBS whose system contained files of erotic pictures. 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1554 (M.D.Fla.1993). A subscriber of the defendant’s BBS had uploaded files containing digitized pictures copied from the plaintiff’s copyrighted magazine, which files remained on the BBS for other subscribers to download. Id. The court did not conclude, as plaintiffs suggest in this ease, that the BBS is itself hable for the unauthorized reproduction of plaintiffs’ work; instead, the court concluded that the BBS operator was Hable for violating the plaintiffs right to publicly distribute and display copies of its work. Id. at 1556-57.

In support of their argument that Netcom is directly liable for copying plaintiffs’ works, plaintiffs cite to the court’s conclusion that “[tjhere is no dispute that [the BBS operator] suppled a product containing unauthorized copies of a copyrighted work. It does not matter that [the BBS operator] claims he did not make the copies [him]self.” Id. at 1556. It is clear from the context of this discussion 14 that the Playboy court was looking only at the exclusive right to distribute copies to the public, where liability exists regardless of whether the defendant makes copies. Here, however, plaintiffs do not argue that Netcom is Hable for its public distribution of copies. Instead, they claim that Netcom is Hable because its computers in fact made copies. Therefore, the above-quoted language has no bearing on the issue of direct HabiHty for unauthorized reproductions. Notwithstanding Playboy’s holding that a BBS operator may be directly Hable for distributing or displaying to the pubHc copies of protected works, 15 this court holds *1371 that the storage on a defendant’s system of infringing copies and retransmission to other servers is not a direct infringement by the BBS operator of the exclusive right to reproduce the work where such copies are uploaded by an infringing user. Playboy does not hold otherwise. 16

e. Sega Case

A court in this district addressed the issue of whether a BBS operator is liable for copyright infringement where it solicited subscribers to upload files containing copyrighted materials to the BBS that were available for others to download. Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 857 F.Supp. 679, 683 (N.D.Cal.1994). The defendant’s “MAPHIA” BBS contained copies of plaintiff Sega’s video game programs that were uploaded by users. Id. at 683. The defendant solicited the uploading of such programs and received consideration for the right to download files. Id. Access was given for a fee or to those purchasing the defendant’s hardware device that allowed Sega video game cartridges to be copied. Id. at 683-84. The court granted a preliminary injunction against the defendant, finding that plaintiffs had shown a prima facie ease of direct and contributory infringement. Id. at 687. The court found that copies were made by unknown users of the BBS when files were uploaded and downloaded. Id. Further, the court found that the defendant’s knowledge of the infringing activities, encouragement, direction and provision of the facilities through his operation of the BBS constituted contributory infringement, even though the defendant did not know exactly when files were uploaded or downloaded. Id. at 686-87.

This court is not convinced that Sega provides support for a finding of direct infringement where copies are made on a defendant’s BBS by users who upload files. Although there is some language in Sega regarding direct infringement, it is entirely eonclusory:

Sega has established a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501. Sega has established that unauthorized copies of its games are made when such games are uploaded to the MAPHIA bulletin board, here with the knowledge of Defendant Scherman. These games are thereby placed on the storage media of the electronic bulletin board by unknown users.

Id. at 686 (emphasis added). The court’s reference to the “knowledge of Defendant” indicates that the court was focusing on contributory infringement, as knowledge is not an element of direct infringement. Perhaps, Sega’s references to direct infringement and that “copies ... are made” are to the direct liability of the “unknown users,” as there can be no contributory infringement by a defendant without direct infringement by another. See 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 12.04[A][3][a], at 12-89. Thus, the court finds that neither Playboy nor Sega requires finding Netcom liable for direct infringement of plaintiffs’ exclusive right to reproduce their works. 17

f. Public Distribution and Display?

Plaintiffs allege that Netcom is directly liable for making copies of their works. See FAC ¶ 25. They also allege that Netcom violated their exclusive rights to publicly display copies of their works. FAC ¶¶44, 51. There are no allegations that Netcom violated plaintiffs’ exclusive right to publicly distribute their works. However, in their discussion of direct infringement, plaintiffs insist that Netcom is liable for “maintain[ing] copies of [Erlich’s] messages on its server for eleven days for access by its subscribers and ‘USENET neighbors’ ” and they compare this case to the Playboy case, which dis *1372 cussed the right of public distribution. Opp’n at 7. Plaintiffs also argued this theory of infringement at oral argument. Tr. 18 5:22. Because this could be an attempt to argue that Netcom has infringed plaintiffs’ rights of public distribution and display, the court will address these arguments.

Playboy concluded that the defendant infringed the plaintiffs exclusive rights to publicly distribute and display copies of its works. 839 F.Supp. at 1556-57. The court is not entirely convinced that the mere possession of a digital copy on a BBS that is accessible to some members of the public constitutes direct infringement by the BBS operator. Such a holding suffers from the same problem of causation as the reproduction argument. Only the subscriber should be hable for causing the distribution of plaintiffs’ work, as the contributing actions of the BBS provider are automatic and indiscriminate. Erlich could have posted his messages through countless access providers and the outcome would be the same: anyone with access to Usenet newsgroups would be able to read his messages. There is no logical reason to draw a line around Netcom and Klemesrud and say that they are uniquely responsible for distributing Erlich’s messages. Netcom is not even the first link in the chain of distribution — Erlich had no direct relationship with Netcom but dealt solely with Klemesrud’s BBS, which used Net-corn to gain its Internet access. Every Usenet server has a role in the distribution, so plaintiffs’ argument would create unreasonable liability. Where the BBS merely stores and passes along all messages sent by its subscribers and others, the BBS should not be seen as causing these works to be publicly distributed or displayed.

Even accepting the Playboy court’s holding, the case is factually distinguishable. Unlike the BBS in that case, Netcom does not maintain an archive of files for its users. Thus, it cannot be said to be “supplying] a product.” In contrast to some of its larger competitors, Netcom does not create or control the content of the information available to its subscribers; it merely provides access to the Internet, whose content is controlled by no single entity. Although the Internet consists ’ of many different computers networked together, some of which may contain infringing files, it does not make sense to hold the operator of each computer Hable as an infringer merely because his or her computer is linked to a computer with an infringing file. It would be especially inappropriate to hold Hable a service that acts more Hke a conduit, in other words, one that does not itself keep an archive of files for more than a short duration. Finding such a service Hable would involve an unreasonably broad construction of pubHe distribution and display rights. No purpose would be served by holding Hable those who have no abiHty to control the information to which their subscribers have access, even though they might be in some sense helping to achieve the Internet’s automatic “pubHe distribution” and the users’ “pubHe” display of files.

g. Conclusion

The court is not persuaded by plaintiffs’ argument that Netcom is directly Hable for the copies that are made and stored on its computer. Where the infringing subscriber is clearly directly Hable for the same act, it does not make sense to adopt a rule that could lead to the HabiHty of countless parties whose role in the infringement is nothing more than setting up and operating a system that is necessary for the functioning of the Internet. Such a result is unnecessary as there is already a party directly Hable for causing the copies to be made. Plaintiffs occasionally claim that they only seek to hold Hable a party that refuses to delete infringing files after they have been warned. However, such HabiHty cannot be based on a theory of direct infringement, where knowledge is irrelevant. The court does not find workable a theory of infringement that would hold the entire Internet Hable for activities that cannot reasonably be deterred. BilKons of bits of data flow through the Internet and are necessarily stored on servers throughout the network and it is thus practically impos *1373 sible to screen out infringing bits from nonin-fringing bits. Because the court cannot see any meaningful distinction (without regard to knowledge) between what Netcom did and what every other Usenet server does, the court finds that Netcom cannot be held hable for direct infringement. Cf. IITF Report at 69 (noting uncertainty regarding whether BBS operator should be directly hable for reproduction or distribution of files uploaded by a subscriber). 19

2. Contributory Infringement

Netcom is not free from habihty just because it did not directly infringe plaintiffs’ works; it may still be liable as a contributory infringer. Although there is no statutory rule of habihty for infringement committed by others,

[t]he absence of such express language in the copyright statute does not preclude the imposition of habihty for copyright infringement on certain parties who have not themselves engaged in the infringing activity. For vicarious habihty is imposed in virtually ah areas of the law, and the concept of contributory infringement is merely a species of the broader problem of identifying the circumstances in which it is just to hold one individual accountable for the actions of another.

Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 435, 104 S.Ct. 774, 785, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984) (footnote omitted). Liability for participation in the infringement wih be estabhshed where the defendant, “with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.” Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir.1971).

a. Knowledge of Infringing Activity

Plaintiffs insist that Netcom knew that Erlich was infringing their copyrights at least after receiving notice from plaintiffs’ counsel indicating that Erlich had posted copies of their works onto a.r.s. through Net-corn’s system. Despite this knowledge, Net-com continued to allow Erlich to post messages to a.r.s. and left the allegedly infringing messages on its system so that Netcom’s subscribers and other Usenet servers could access them. Netcom argues that it did not possess the necessary type of knowledge because (1) it did not know of Erlich's planned infringing activities when it agreed to lease its facilities to Klemesrud, (2) it did not know that Erlich would infringe prior to any of his postings, (3) it is unable to screen out infringing postings before they are made, and (4) its knowledge of the infringing nature of Erlich’s postings was too equivocal given the difficulty in assessing whether the registrations were valid and whether Erlich’s use was fair. The court will address these arguments in turn.

Netcom cites cases holding that there is no contributory infringement by the lessors of premises that are later used for infringement unless the lessor had knowledge of the intended use at the time of the signing of the lease. See, e.g. Deutsch v. Arnold, 98 F.2d 686, 688 (2d Cir.1938). 20 The contribution to the infringement by the defendant in Deutsch was merely to lease use of the premises to the infringer. Here, Netcom not only leases space but also serves as an access provider, which includes the storage and transmission of information necessary to fa- *1374 eilitate Erlich’s postings to a.r.s. Unlike a landlord, Netcom retains some control over the use of its system. See infra part I.B.3.a. Thus, the relevant time frame for knowledge is not when Netcom entered into an agreement with Klemesrud. It should be when Netcom provided its services to allow Erlich to infringe plaintiffs’ copyrights. Cf. Screen Gems-Columbia Music, Inc. v. Mark-Fi Records, Inc., 256 F.Supp. 399, 403 (S.D.N.Y.1966) (analyzing knowledge at time that defendant rendered its particular service). It is undisputed that Netcom did not know that Erlich was infringing before it received notice from plaintiffs. Netcom points out that the alleged instances of infringement occurring on Netcom’s system all happened prior to December 29, 1994, the date on which Netcom first received notice of plaintiffs’ infringement claim against Erlich. See Pisani Feb. 8, 1995 Deck, ¶ 6 & Exs. (showing latest posting made on December 29, 1994); McShane Feb. 8, 1995 Deck; FAC ¶¶ 36-38 & Ex. I. Thus, there is no question of fact as to whether Netcom knew or should have known of Erlich’s infringing activities that occurred more than 11 days before receipt of the December 28, 1994 letter.

However, the evidence reveals a question of fact as to whether Netcom knew or should have known that Erlich had infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights following receipt of plaintiffs’ letter. Because Netcom was arguably participating in Erlich’s public distribution of plaintiffs’ works, there is a genuine issue as to whether Netcom knew of any infringement by Erlich before it was too late to do anything about it. If plaintiffs can prove the knowledge element, Netcom will be Hable for contributory infringement since its failure to simply cancel Erhch’s infringing message and thereby stop an infringing copy from being distributed worldwide constitutes substantial participation in Eriich’s pubhc distribution of the message. Cf. R.T. Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology ¶ 15.11B, at S15-42 (2d ed. 1994) (opining that “where information service is less directly involved in the enterprise of creating unauthorized copies, a finding of contributory infringement is not likely”).

Netcom argues that its knowledge after receiving notice of ErHch’s alleged infringing activities was too equivocal given the difficulty in assessing whether registrations are vahd and whether use is fair. Although a mere unsupported allegation of infringement by a copyright owner may not automatically put a defendant on notice of infringing activity, Netcom’s position that Habihty must be unequivocal is unsupportable. While perhaps the typical infringing activities of BBSs wiU involve copying software, where BBS operators are better equipped to judge infringement, the fact that this involves written works should not distinguish it. Where works contain copyright notices within them, as here, it is difficult to argue that a defendant did not know that the works were copyrighted. To require proof of vahd registrations would be impractical and would perhaps take too long to verify, making it impossible for a copyright holder to protect his or her works in some cases, as works are automatically deleted less than two weeks after they are posted. The court is more persuaded by the argument that it is beyond the abiHty of a BBS operator to quickly and fairly determine when a use is not infringement where there is at least a colorable claim of fair use. Where a BBS operator cannot reasonably verify a claim of infringement, either because of a possible fair use defense, the lack of copyright notices on the copies, or the copyright holder’s failure to provide the necessary documentation to show that there is a likely infringement, the operator’s lack of knowledge will be found reasonable and there will be no Habihty for contributory infringement for aHowing the continued distribution of the works on its system.

Since Netcom was given notice of an infringement claim before ErHch had completed his infringing activity, there may be a question of fact as to whether Netcom knew or should have known that such activities were infringing. Given the context of a dispute between a former minister and a church he is criticizing, Netcom may be able to show that its lack of knowledge that ErHch was infringing was reasonable. However, Net-com admits that it did not even look at the postings once given notice and that had it looked at the copyright notice and state *1375 ments regarding authorship, it would have triggered an investigation into whether there was infringement. Kobrin June 7, 1995 Decl., Ex. H, Hoffinan Depo. At 125-128. These facts are sufficient to raise a question as to Netcom’s knowledge once it received a letter from plaintiffs on December 29, 1994. 21

b. Substantial Participation

Where a defendant has knowledge of the primary infringer’s infringing activities, it will be liable if it “induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of’ the primary infringer. Gershwin Publishing, 443 F.2d at 1162. Such participation must be substantial. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 821 F.Supp. 616, 625 (N.D.Cal.1993), aff'd, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir.1994); Demetriades v. Kaufmann, 690 F.Supp. 289, 294 (S.D.N.Y.1988).

Providing a service that allows for the automatic distribution of all Usenet postings, infringing and noninfringing, goes well beyond renting a premises to an infringer. See Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 847 F.Supp. 1492, 1496 (E.D.Cal.1994) (finding that renting space at swap meet to known bootleggers not “substantial participation” in the infringers’ activities). It is more akin to the radio stations that were found liable for rebroadcasting an infringing broadcast. See, e.g., Select Theatres Corp. v. Ronzoni Macaroni Corp., 59 U.S.P.Q. 288, 291 (S.D.N.Y.1943). Netcom allows Erlich’s infringing messages to remain on its system and be further distributed to other Usenet servers worldwide. It does not completely relinquish control over how its system is used, unlike a landlord. Thus, it is fair, assuming Netcom is able to take simple measures to prevent further damage to plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, to hold Netcom liable for contributory infringement where Netcom has knowledge of Erlich’s infringing postings yet continues to aid in the accomplishment of Erlich’s purpose of publicly distributing the postings. Accordingly, plaintiffs do raise a genuine issue of material fact as to their theory of contributory infringement as to the postings made after Netcom was on notice of plaintiffs’ infringement claim.

3. Vicarious Liability

Even if plaintiffs cannot prove that Netcom is contributorily liable for its participation in the infringing activity, it may still seek to prove vicarious infringement based on Netcom’s relationship to Erlich. A defendant is liable for vicarious liability for the actions of a primary infringer where the defendant (1) has the right and ability to control the infringer’s acts and (2) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement. See Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 306 (2d Cir.1963). Unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. 3 Nimmer on COPYRIGHT § 12.04[A][1], at 12-70.

a. Right and Ability To Control

The first element of vicarious liability will be met if plaintiffs can show that Netcom has the right and ability to supervise the conduct of its subscribers. Netcom argues that it does not have the right to control its users’ postings before they occur. Plaintiffs dispute this and argue that Netcom’s terms and conditions, to which its subscribers 22 must agree, specify that Netcom reserves the right to take remedial action against subscribers. See, e.g., Francis Depo. at 124-126. Plaintiffs argue that under “netiquette,” the informal rules and customs that have developed on the Internet, violation of copyrights by a user is unacceptable and the access provider has a duty take measures to prevent this; where the immediate service