 Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the webcast today. We are going to learn about the landmark decision in the Authors Guild v. Haughty Trust case, handed down by Judge Harold Bayer of the Southern District of New York on October 10th. And we are very lucky to have, as our speakers today, four attorneys who participated in the case who are going to tell us a little bit more about the case and its meaning. First, we're going to hear from Jonathan Band, who is the Principal Practitioner at Policy Band with PLLC. He's going to tell us a little bit about fair use in Section 108. And skipping over, we're going to hear then from Jason Schultz, who is faculty at the University of California Berkeley School of Law and at the New York University School of Law. And he's going to tell us a little bit about mass digitization for search and other non-expressive uses. Then we'll hear from Daniel F. Goldstein, who is a Principal Partner at Brown, Goldstein and Levy, who's going to tell us a little bit about technology accessibility and copyright. Dan is of counsel to the National Federation for the Blind. And then we'll finally hear from Peter Yatzi, who's a professor at the American University Washington College of Law, who's going to tell us a little bit about transformative repurposing and how this decision fits in with the ARL Code of Best Practices. Before we get going, though, I want to give you a little bit of a history lesson, a very quick one. As I'm sure you all know, this litigation involves the mass digitization of books from the collections of research libraries, millions of books, tens of millions of books, and the library's use of those digital scans for preservation, accessibility, and search via a central repository that is managed by the supposedly initiated in response to a small pilot project around orphan works at the University of Michigan. But in fact, the complaint alleged that everything Hathi does with its scans from preservation, from soup to nuts, is an infringement. And the author's guild and its fellow plaintiffs asked the court to pull the plug on the Hathi trust scans and impound those scans until Congress goes, which Jonathan Bann put together with our very helpful colleague, Trisha Donovan. This Hathi litigation is part of a family of lawsuits revolving around the Google library project. And although it was the last suit to win for libraries on basically every single possibly have ruled on anyway, Judge Bayer rightly refused to rule going to look like. So we'll have to wait and see what happens with that before anybody gets to sue on it. But for every other court with the libraries and with the trust and importantly with the blonde, let me turn it over. Oh, and I have to put this quote. And so what the author's guild in their complaint and then in a motion that they filed, they basically said that it was available to Hathi trust. What Hathi trust was doing was available to libraries, things like preservation and for interlibrary loan. And the argument the guild was making was that 108 was sort of carefully drafted during the legislative process that led up to the 1976 act and that it is basically constitutes libraries are allowed to do with respect to reproduction and distribution and that fair use is not available to libraries to the extent they want to exceed what is available under section 108. Alarming argument for us for the library community to library is then what about library lending under the first sale doctrine? You know, the first sale doctrine in essence is an exception, right? And it's outside of 108. And if you look at the language of section 109A, it doesn't say anything about libraries. So, you know, if you if you take the author's guild arguments with logical conclusion, then you would not be able, the library would not be able to lend a book that that exception 109A is not available to libraries. And then there's a lot of other reproductions and distributions libraries engage in all the time. You know, libraries of course provide internet access. Internet access involves the making of RAM copies, random access memory copies. Also, when you turn on the computer, you have you make you and that could lead to exception, you know, that could lead to infringement with copies that would otherwise be infringement's but for section 117 of the Copyright Act. You have the Chafee Amendment, which we'll be hearing a little bit more about later, but that's the provisionalized entities to make copies for the print disabled. Again, it doesn't, it talks about authorized entities, but it doesn't talk about libraries. So, it would a library be, you know, because that goes beyond what's permitted under section 108, would that be available to libraries? And finally, you know, we use the example of the Library of Congress American Memory Project, where Congress in dozens of instances of a work, but when they haven't been able to search for the owner, in other words, where it's an orphan, but they're still going to be uploading images or other material onto the website related to the American Memory Project, that they are doing that under fair use. And now again, that would be that that use is well beyond anything permitted under 108. And so, we in essence said, well, under the author's guilt that 107, again, fair use is not available to the extended exceeds 108, then the Library of Congress is a serial copyright infringer provided by 107. You know, in the explicit language, in the plain language of the statute, quite clearly of 108, it quite clearly says that 108 does not limit 107. This is why this language didn't mean what it said. Fortunately, Judge Baer, oh no, this is quite clear. It's unambiguous that 108 in no way limits what's available under 107. And he also sort of looked at some of the legislative history because the author's Judge Baer agreed with us and again, came up with this, you know, while it provides very clear exceptions available to libraries, that fair use is still available to libraries to engage in uses beyond what is specifically permitted under section one. Should I take it from you, John? Yeah, go ahead. All right, so this is Jason Schultz. So I want to thank John, that was a great introduction to many of the issues. The thing that's really great about this case in a lot of ways is how it brings together so many of the important issues facing libraries right now around digital, you know, circulation, the holdings they have, and the access they want to provide. And so really bringing them all together in one case while it was, you know, of course, a threat to libraries, I think the vindication from the opinion of so many of the functions that libraries serve for society for the many different kinds of patrons they have is really important. So I'm going to talk a bit specifically about the way in which this collection of digitized books serve the scholarly and research community, particularly a group which goes under a couple different names, but we follow the brief on behalf of them under a moniker of digital humanities. And specifically a group that uses what is commonly called big data type analytics to look at huge data sets to try and understand them at a sort of macro level. And what was going on here, the brief was pulled together by myself. Matt Sag is a lab professor and Matt Jockers, who is a digital humanities scholar. And on behalf of close to 50 other scholars who care about this, where they take a question they have about literature, about a set of works, and they want to look at those works in terms of all being data points in the database to understand at a macro level what's going on. So for instance, if you wanted to search through the text of millions of books to see how certain words were used or certain concepts were discussed, or the frequency or the shift in how they're used, that's what these scholars do. They'll want to understand the trends, the larger, broader trends. This is not about reading the specific work, so that might back to come later. It's about starting with the sort of big questions about these works as a data set, as a large data set. This is something that libraries have traditionally provided to scholars is access to these kinds of large sets of works, but never quite in this way until this moment when you have them digitized and searchable in a particular way. And so we focused on the searchability of the corpus of these works as a benefit to scholars and researchers. And one of the reasons we wanted to do that is because, as most people know, it's fair use. Scholarship and research, it's in the preamble of the statute in that section. It's one of the main purposes which is sort of definitively recognized as one of the reasons we have fair use is to allow for scholarship and research. And what we wanted the court to understand was this type of copying is really essential to certain kinds of scholarship and research in the digital community that you just really can't do it without mass digitization. It's become enabled in this way because of these kinds of projects like HathiTrust. This has been done in other areas of academic endeavor such as biology and natural sciences with data about the earth, about other kinds of subject matter. And here we're turning to the humanities, literature, understanding of culture and society through works such as books. So we provided in the brief several examples and, you know, the briefs available so people want to look at them. But just for instance, one example was looking through all of the books in Google's Ngram, which is a way to search through the Google corpus there, and looking at the way in which the United States is used in those books, whether it's referred to as a singular, the United States is, or a plural, the United States are. And one example that scholars have discovered is that around the time of the Civil War, particularly after the Civil War, there was a shift from the United States being seen as a plural, the United States are, to a singular, the United States is. And understanding that in literature and how that shift happened is significant because it opens up whole new areas of inquiry into why that happened, how were people writing about it, how did it manifest within different authorial voices and trends in the literature. Same with the treatment of slavery, the usage of certain words, they're all kinds of scholarly explorations that can happen. So how is this relevant to lawsuit? Well, as John just laid out, one of the main arguments that the authors go try to put forward is that the simple act of digitization and storage of these copies is infringing. But they said that making all of these reproductions in memory and on storage, that's where we should stop and that's just illegal. And what we wanted to say is, look, that kind of copying can be justified under the Fair Use Doctrine when it enables certain kinds of uses that are transformative, such as the research and scholarly uses here. And fortunately, the court agreed and the court really was able to look past that first step, include it into the analysis, but look to the ultimate use of many of these works for searching, for understanding about books, to look at the metadata about the books, and to look at the broader meaning of the corpus as a whole. And the court really found that when you're searching, when it enables a certain kind of search or information gathering that requires these sort of intermediate copies to be made, that's a transformative use under the Fair Use Doctrine. That's a different purpose. In fact, the court at one point even refers to it as a superior search. The court really understood that these new methods of academic inquiry need to be enabled and that the search mechanism is a way for scholars to embark on those inquiries. So once the court recognized that, as most people know with Fair Use, once you sort of deal with the first question of the kind of purpose of what you're doing, the purpose of the use, that really sets the stage for many of the other questions. And the court really felt comfortable finding that this scholarly purpose and the searching that helped it justified any of the kind of copying that needed to happen to enable the search engine to work that the libraries were offering. And therefore, the types of work included, the amount copied, all of that was justified because that's, in fact, reasonable in light of this broader purpose of scholarly inquiry. What was also interesting about the case in this decision in looking at the scholarly inquiry question was that the argument often gets made about, well, but they could have paid for it. In other words, if you wanted to do this kind of inquiry, why don't the libraries just pay for it? Why isn't there a market here? And the authors will definitely try to argue that, well, there is a market here. They should pay us to do these kinds of searches. And again, the court was very wise, I think, in recognizing that not every use needs to be paid for or otherwise there would be no fair use. In other words, if every use needed to be licensed, fair use wouldn't exist because fair use is an exception to infringement. It's not infringing to begin with and therefore doesn't need to be paid for. And that the court recognized that this was a transformative use and therefore, quote, unquote, transformative markets aren't really the kind of markets that you need to license and that if you did, it would be prohibitively expensive. In other words, the kind of licensing you would need to do to get to millions of works would be in the hundreds of millions and that that could be prohibitive and, in fact, to stop this kind of scholarly inquiry from happening. So I think overall the court really understood the importance of the scholarship and research here and I think that was a huge part of why it found it to be transformative. And it really understood the way you get there is you have to have these kind of technologies that do create copies. But the reason you're creating it is not what we call an expressive use where you would read the book, but really a non-expressive use where you're copying it to get to the metadata, to get to the broader meaning and the understanding. And one thing I'll say and I'll leave it off here is there's a parallel litigation, as most people know, and thanks to the great chart of the litigation family, we can understand all the different interactions between the different lawsuits. What's interesting about the opinion is the way that just bear really laid it out, there's a very good chance that a similar analysis would apply to Google and Google's various defense in terms of enabling the similar kind of research and scholarship through their book search directly. So it would be interesting to see if that case ever gets to the various question and there's a good chance it won't. But if it does, whether the similar analysis will apply to in fact Google, because many of the various cases do find that once you have a strong transformative use, even if you're commercial, even if you have lots of money, in fact Google has won many of these cases, that you can still qualify for fair use. So this might not only be a win for the libraries, but this might help influence the outcome in the Google case itself. And I'll end there. Great. Thank you. It's an old thing. Let me get to address a couple of background matters first before I get to the heart of things, because I think some of you may not know how blind or other print disabled people read digital books. The answer is very much the way you and I read visually, but they do it either tactically through refreshable rail displays, audibly through what's called Screen Access software that vocalizes the text, or through magnification that is visually, or through some combination thereof. And when I refer to print disabilities, I'm not trying to be politically correct. It's a category that covers much more than the blind, essentially anybody who can't effectively read print, because of a visual or physical, perceptual, developmental, cognitive, or learning disability. So it can be somebody with dyslexia who needs the additional channel of hearing the text while they're seeing it, somebody who has a cerebral or other palsy that causes too much head shaking to focus on a pitch. And indeed, some of the software that's used by the blind, some communities like the dyslexics, are larger purchasers of exactly that same software. But when I say very much the way you and I read visually, I'm referring to the fact that we don't read linearly, we don't read at a constant speed. Screen Access software allows the blind user to do the same thing, reading letter by letter if necessary, to jump around the page, to scan, to slow down, and to be able to navigate through a book when it's properly laid out by going, say, the chapter through two without having to scroll through page two, figure two, footnote two, et cetera, et cetera. Short course on how blind read accessible digital information. Digital and accessible sadly are not synonymous and getting access to digital information has been a struggle for everybody with print disabilities. This case involves digitized as opposed to digital information, that is to say that we're not originally in digital format, such as print, but it is an extraordinary level in the playing field because it's been pretty clear until now that the lack of equal access to information has been a far more severe handicap than just not being able to see. So this author's guild case is a helpful time in the intersection of technology, civil rights, and copyrights. An important word about the civil rights here. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rebiltation Act of 1976 are the most polite and self-equal rights when it's not too much trouble. What do I mean by that? Well, the ADA promises equal opportunity, equal access to programs and activities. The Rebiltation Act forbids denying somebody the benefits of a program or activity unless providing that equality would be unduly burdensome or would fundamentally alter the program. So, for example, a blind student at a small liberal arts college could probably not require the college to spend, say, $200 million to digitize its print library so that the blind student could have access to the same collection the sighted student can. But what the civil rights, it must be made available to the blind student for use on the same terms that the sighted student print collection. The University of Michigan, particularly John Wilkin and Jack Bernard, recognized from the very beginning when Google approached them that there was an extraordinary opportunity here for access, make this collection available once it was created. We intervened in this cave. The universities didn't want to get up and say, oh, you know, we're going to have ADA obligations here that can be enforced. But also, they didn't object to our intervening because they understood that we could make with far greater authenticity and knowledge the argument that digitizing print books so that they can be made available to blind scholars is a fair use and a compelling one. So that's where the ADA plays into this case. It legitimated the creation of this corpus, this digital corpus, because it was done with the intention of meeting civil rights obligations. And that legitimate use translated very easily in the judge's mind to a fair use. Once we were in this case, it was important to establish a second point, which was that universities, if they chose to do so, could go beyond the ADA and make this treasure trove available to all print disabled beneficiaries who were recognized by the chiefly amendment for the kind of works covered by that amendment. In other words, universities could, and I'll explain why in a minute it will be very much in the university's interest to do so, could make their books available, the digital, digitized books available, not only to their own print disabled students and faculty, but to all print disabled person's case is for the blind. We've jumped from a trickle of textual information to a flood. To give you just a fraction of an idea here, consider that about 20,000 new books are published every month, but the National Library Service of the Library of Congress can produce only 2,000 books a year in accessible format for the blind. So what are some of the implications of this decision for libraries, universities, and digital copies of print text blind? One thing the digital copies of print that they felt they couldn't do because they weren't sure they were covered, there is a disability student service office who is making for the 17th time a scanned and OCR copy of the same book that they've made before where the student has gone and bought it new, and then it's because the used copy would be too poor for scanning, sliced the spine, made the OCR, scanned an OCR, and then not kept it and have to do it over. And the libraries have too often done the same thing with respect to something that's on reserve when the blind student has needed it. So one of the things that can happen now is that these can be retained and it means that the quality of them can be improved over time. Universities make use of that. Many of you won't even have to make those copies because if somebody at the University of Richmond or Maricopa Community College or wherever has already made this copy and put it into the chafee pipeline, you've got a bigger storehouse and fewer things that you have to convert. But the other thing is that it's going to mean a change in quality or it can mean a change in quality that would be good for everyone because to be truly accessible images need to be labeled. That's handwork and that's cumbersome. It makes more sense to do it if it's not just a one-off thing and equations can be converted to MathML using open source software. And what does this mean? This means that when a sighted person wants to do a search of the kind that Jason was just describing, but the search is to see which Renaissance image of the Madonna is most used in books, the more images have been labeled and the better the labels are, the broader and more effective the searches. So it will benefit everyone if the quality of the accessible books, the usability is increased. Finally, I should point out that whether you've digitized reasons in the wake of this case, expect that your patrons with print disabilities will be knocking at your door asking for access and this opinion strongly strengthens their case in getting a yes from you. And finally, there's a lever here for you in dealing with your vendors who sell you digital content. Because of the strong statements about the need for equal access and the statements about fair use, you can tell Elsevier they either need to start making those online journals in a need pub three format that's accessible or that if they don't, you as a library are entitled to do so as fair use to create accessible copies as fair use. And I'm looking forward that you're telling me what else there is. A long time about this litigation, the conventional, it really matters. Interests in a matter that's going forward between private parties weigh in, so heard by actually intervening in the case and then again by these extremely persuasive friend of the court briefs that were filed by LCA and by Jason and the two MAPs on behalf of their group of 50, furthered efforts to ventilate the litigation and to make it clear to the judge how much use we now all know that in most fair use analysis in the courts, this has been true for the last 20 years or some of you's rationale is expanding rapidly, how did what it needed formative use is a very real doctrine, it's also a very narrow doctrine and it doesn't apply in cases like this and their argument boiled down, I hope it do it justice, was that formative fair use like other narrow interpretations of transformative fair use, just fair use isn't relevant to the determinate use requires a lot of copying or the copying of many works. You don't have to change a work in terms of to transform it, repurpose or toward a new legitimate goal activities that Dan has just able copies to blind and other print disabled readers in the opinion as transformative use is a great deal of material is copied, but it's copied, it's copied I should say without alteration because the search function wouldn't be a useful function if the copy's world is copied without alteration, but again for a new purpose to enable search to enable new forms of digital scholarship. The judge is a list of weather preservation activities standing alone ability out to other transformative use going on in the case the his uncertainty on that point doesn't important in the other very broad the parochial one has to do with work that that brand to have been working on in the context of ARL for the last several years and that gave rise of course as many of you know to this statement of best practices unfair use for academic libraries that be to fulfill their educational intimately described as transformative of these various library activities in the more because now that we have judge bears opinion we know that the state of current law number wide range of different kinds of library activities transformative a given use worthwhile or because it's more specifically in legal parlance transformative why should we try educational uses fairly worthy once well jason's already suggested the answer in opinion transformative uses get special treatment in copyright law and in particular transformative uses get special treatment and the supreme court has said this and the second circuit has said it where it already stated before him namely a copyright holder cannot preempt genuinely transformative rather than simply worthy or educational the analysis changes dramatically in favor of the user this consideration of lost licensing revenues or other kinds of market harm if it doesn't stop to tell about why the things we do aren't just good the authors go tried to argue that a blind student wanted to research you find one out of the 10 million books that and you digitize and scan it and then if there's another book the student needs another i guess that presupposes semesters that are geologic age is long tire corpus that i'm doing that analysis making the digital copy as a fair use if the purpose is persons with print disabilities so as long as making those copies are for the purposes of making them available subsequently to a print disabled student should one come along then indeed it's perfectly permissible to make those copies for that purpose without having a person right in front of you and one of the things that i think anybody in an academic setting who's dealt with disabilities knows is that by the time the blind student shows up if you haven't already made the information available it's too late related question on the issue of accessibility i mean one of the questions before was did congress really mean the primary mission in which case you had to have a one purpose entity that was doing this like bookshare and the court accepted that congress met what it meant what it said and said what it meant when it said a primary mission and so the imposition by law and universities of the mission of equal access makes a library HAP entity should it choose to do so it does not compel doing anything other than satisfying the ADA that is making accessible material available to your own community but it allows it and obviously to the extent that that creates a larger common corpus so that you don't have to make your own copy for your own reserves of something then of chafee of i think enhances and makes easier for each university to carry out its mission in terms of equal access friend and if i can just jump in it's peter to extend your stance point a little bit which is absolutely correct and i'd say one more thing about what i would i drive from the opinion on this issue and that is that the the the moral library does to create a ability services office on campus to the entity under section 121 and this is Jonathan and i just want to add very quickly the the chafee amendment that that michigan is in the chafee amendment is actually important beyond our borders now and in the wipo there's a discussion about other kind of instrument for the print disabled and one of the issues is what is an authorized entity and and i think a lot of publishers have been saying well authorized entity shallander chafee doesn't include general purpose libraries and educational institutions and and so this ruling is very timely and really helps helps get a in the international context as well right and the good news just keeps in terms of thinking about this opinion not just for this case but for future cases which you know a lot of professors love to do and as peter pointed out the judge is very careful to say that he wasn't saying preservation is off the table he just felt clearly that there was enough on the table for the purposes that issue to find that the transformative uses justified all the copying going on and in some ways similar to just the conversation we're having the the fact that libraries were central to this case is very important because of all the different purposes they serve in copyright cases you'll often i have to worry and i think others do too that you focus too narrowly on one particular thing that's going on and don't see the big picture you'll miss out on the the benefits that of having entities that really serve these purposes and so i think the judge is very comfortable with preservation being in the mix when all these other things are going on now let's say you only had a preservation purpose that's the only thing we're doing you're just mass digitizing and then sticking it somewhere to preserve it whether you know depending on who you are um if you're a library otherwise as john this point that you might have other rights under sort of 108 and other opportunities if you look specifically at fair use though here here's what i think i think your purpose matters and i think if you're preserving just to be a hoarder of sorts right of a sort of data hoarder pack rat that i mean i just don't think you're going to do that i think institutions such as libraries archives educational institutions other people they preserve for another purpose in other words they're really you know for to make sure that we have our cultural heritage to make sure there are resources for scholars to make sure that we can have access to literature in as many different forms as possible for many different populations such as the you know the disabled and others and whether you know exactly what all those are right now or in the future i think is going to be less the concern and i think that's where i saw judge bair go is it with the opinion he's like i get where this is headed and yes there's there currently some very concrete benefits that are transformative purposes and i'm you know obviously you lead the opinion with those but i think getting the broader view the longer view of understanding that preservation there are purposes we don't even know about yet that we might want to be part of this mix he seemed very open to that so i think you can read this opinion is very open to that by preserving that question of preservation but i think anytime you preserve um it's it's for another purpose in other words you're you're doing it to to have some social benefit long term and i think as long as that's tied to the preservation you know what the long term intention is uh and the benefit then i think this opinion is consistent with that um and then you know if you have a case somewhere where someone's just preserving for the pure sake of doing that um as a as an exercise i think that's a more open question um but i don't think in any way this opinion precludes that being a very i would this is john bett i would just add that i think that if the entity doing that preservation what what bair considers at least for the time being to be non transformative president it seems to me that if it's a non commercial entity he would probably say that's fine uh particularly if you could then put it for future research purposes or preserving for future scholarly purposes or for future educational purposes which you know virtually any or any other kind of nonprofit institution could obviously be for that purpose uh i think bair would be judge bair would be perfectly fine with that you know saying well of course that's a fair use yes it doesn't it might not fit into a you know as a defendant because it's non commercial for one of these other uh favorite purposes it's perfectly okay favored on the fair use statute so we heard in support of excessive the author to control the preparation of derivative works and to control what are called derivative works you know things like the sequel to a movie or the movie version could argue that an accessible copy of a novel is a derivative work that the novelist should be able to choose when and how that that derivative work is created library wouldn't have much of an argument for making a digital copy of the digital copy because it wouldn't be for the purpose and it wouldn't be transformative because author would have intended all along that it's used before blind people along with everyone else uh second of all the uh the judge i think was very clearly with uh we we draw lines with respect to the edges of property rights we drew a line that uh you couldn't say i refuse the right to refuse service if your refusals were on racial grounds you can refuse on other non-racial grounds if they're legitimate and the same thing is true here the court was saying you can't under the name of i control my property deny access to reap a reward as a weak argument for repurposing there are other literary use contexts in which the argument may be stronger work and and work it over so to speak as an element of my new poem things like mashups either they're on screen or on the page but i think this notion that the reach of the idea of repurposing that informs our fair use law transformativeness it is not really a meritorious parties in this case so i want to ask jason and jonathan uh whoever wants to jump in are the odds this decision are going to be appealed what are you how would you can hand me am unbiased with hothi trust i agree not to appeal and hothi trust agree i would be doing if i were the author's guild this decision is so judge did not think this was a closed argument on you know the 107 108 issue that i talked about he thought it's clear he thinks those are frivolous arguments the author's guild makes um on fair use you know that quote brandon that you put up i mean he did not see this as even a close case so i think that you know very very likely that that the the the judge is going to award attorneys fees to uh to hothi trust and to uh the national federation of the blinds you know can given that there's two defendants i mean that's twice the legal fees um uh you know so that that that's good news for dan um but but uh you know so i i and i think if it were to get appealed you know again the way the judge uh wrote this decision um you know and i and again given the nature of the defendants given that the defendants are you know this consortium of libraries and the national federation of the blood i mean this is would be like the worst possible case to take up on appeal so certainly if i were the author's guild i would you know say boy i kind of you know sort of misread what was going on and especially you know kind of going back in hindsight's 2020 um the minute that the that michigan university of michigan suspended the orphan there or the minute hothi trust suspended the orphan works project at that point the author's guild should have said well we're keeping our eyes on you if you do anything like that again because they you know they just couldn't let go you know they are now in this situation where the the work project is sort of on the side it's the judge found it was you know you know that that that that the claims related to that were moot which i think is true and so they they sort of proceeded on their worst possible you know that this what would may have been their strongest claims were irrelevant and they proceeded with their weakest claims um and and so i i think again from their perspective to push this forward would be a disaster and they should you know cut their losses uh again if i were advising them i would say cut your losses and get out of this case as quickly as you can not as quickly add that um one of the interesting things is you know we gathered up over 50 signatories for the brief we had to do it relatively quickly um and um get that in front of this district court and putting amicus sprees in front of a district court judge is done but it's not as typical as appellate courts um after we file the brief after the decision um we've already received i would say oh hundreds of inquiries from other scholars who are thinking about using you know corpuses in this way um who might want to also sign on to the brief i mean the numbers might mount on our side for signatories to strengthen with examples the kind of potential for transformative searching and research uh so again i think that they're not going to have a stronger case on appeal um if anything they'll be more people interested in supporting this decision so i'm with jonathan i think you know the the direction i would advise from the head is is out not in very deeper this one last question there's one holding we haven't mentioned at all and that needs to be mentioned because i think it could be very interesting and important and relevant to an appeal which is not only in this case but in future cases um because uh uh it's it's these a lot more oomph to a to a litigation um if it's just one individual rights holder um you know the the the financial incentive to class certification can be difficult to achieve so the associational standing could be sort of an easy way to to get a lot of a lot of uh claims together one a lot of authors together a lot of rights together and and then you can uh and and maybe force a better settlement uh so so the judge ruling that there is no statutory standing under the copyright act i think is a very significant ruling um uh and uh uh you know that that that should be very helpful for libraries and other potential defendants in the future to shed light on this really exciting decision and i want to thank all of you out there listening uh there's so much more to talk about with this case uh you can bet that this commerce wherever we all gather um this is a landmark decision so anyway thank you all for coming and uh and we hope this has been a fun