CASE BRIEF: PROCD, INC. V. ZEIDENBERG, 86 F.3D 1447 (7TH CIR., 1996)

INTRODUCTION 

This is a case for both injunctive and monetary relief under the federal Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1010, the Wisconsin Computer Crimes Act, Wis. Stat. § 943.70, as well as Wisconsin contract and tort law. The facts are undisputed. Matthew Zeidenberg and Silken Mountain Web Services, Inc., which is an admittedly one-person corporation organized by Zeidenberg, purchased copies of the plaintiff’s Select Phone™ CD-ROM software. They transferred listings of telephone numbers from the CD-ROM discs into Zeidenberg’s computer, and then Internet users gained access to those listings by uploading data to an Internet host computer. *644 Plaintiff asserts claims for copyright infringement, breach of the specific covenants contained in the parties’ license agreement to license software, violation of Wisconsin’s Computer Crimes Act, and misappropriation and unfair competition. Defendants argue that data they obtained from the plaintiff’s Select Phone™ program is not subject to copyright. They also maintain that their use of Select Phone™ does not infringe the plaintiff’s copyright, the software licensing agreement does not bind them, and the plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted by federal copyright law.

The court is taking those cross-motions for summary judgment under advisement from both sides. There is jurisdiction present under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the plaintiff’s copyright claim is grounded in federal law, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties with an amount in controversy exceeding $50,000.

I believe that the defendants would be entitled to summary judgment against the plaintiff. The defendants did not infringe the copyright belonging to the plaintiff. While the plaintiff’s software that runs on the Select Phone program is copyrighted, their copyright does not extend to the telephone listings on the CD-ROM discs. In the second, they made use of the covered software for their own personal benefit and, therefore, within the cover of the plaintiff’s copyright, only distributing unwanted data. They did not accept the license agreement furnished with the Select Phone™ user guide and can’t, therefore, be held bound by it. Even if the defendants had agreed to the license, federal copyright law would preempt the license agreement at the location where the plaintiff intended it to be applied to data that cannot be copyrighted. The Copyright Act ultimately preempts the remaining state law claims by the plaintiff because it seems they are attempting to go around federal copyright law.

FACTS

All the information was drawn together from over 3000 telephone directories into a database available on CD-ROM.

The court found that the cost of creating the database was high, making it extremely expensive. The plaintiff wanted to charge a lower fee to infrequent users and a higher fee to commercial users, as they often pay a hefty price when using other intermediaries for such information.

Of course, the Shrinkwrap license for the consumer product, which is priced lower than the commercial version, only allows it to be used for non-commercial purposes.

On the box, it was noted that the software was limited according to a license that appears on the disk, which also promptly illustrates on the screen every time the software is opened.

ISSUE RAISED

Does the buyer have to comply with the terms of a shrinkwrap license because they have become part of the contract?

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

 ProCD claimed that the shrinkwrap license agreement for its software was valid and should be treated as a binding contract. ProCD claimed that by opening the software package and installing the product, Zeidenberg had agreed to the license terms, which clearly limited the use of the software to non-commercial purposes. ProCD argued that shrinkwrap licenses are generally accepted as valid contracts, especially when consumers can review and accept or reject the terms before using the software, just like Zeidenberg did during the installation process. ProCD highlighted that it’s vital for these licenses to be enforceable in software distribution, mainly because you can’t just rely on packaging to communicate all the contract terms for physical goods.

ProCD also stated that it was vital to enforce these license terms to safeguard its intellectual property rights and business model. The company put a lot of resources into creating and keeping a detailed database of telephone directory information, which would lose its value if commercial users were able to access it at non-commercial pricing. ProCD highlighted that their pricing model, which provides lower costs for non-commercial users and higher rates for commercial use, enables a broader range of customers to access the data while still protecting the company’s financial interests. Using the product for commercial purposes without paying the appropriate rate means that Zeidenberg broke the license agreement and negatively impacted ProCD’s standing in the market.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Zeidenberg claimed that the shrinkwrap license from ProCD wasn’t a valid contract because he hadn’t explicitly agreed to the terms when he bought it. Zeidenberg argued that the license terms weren’t clearly shown on the packaging or during the sale, which made it unfair to hold him to a contract he only saw after buying the product. He stated that for a contract to be formed, there needs to be a mutual understanding, and since he didn’t have a clear chance to look over the license terms before purchasing the product, he felt he wasn’t required to follow them. Zeidenberg highlighted that you can’t just impose contractual obligations after a sale without giving the buyer proper notice and a chance to reject the terms.

Additionally, Zeidenberg argued that even if the shrinkwrap license was deemed valid, its limitations were too extensive and went against the basic principles of consumer rights. He claimed that after he legally bought the software, he should be able to use it however he wanted, especially since the license terms weren’t clearly shown or agreed to. Zeidenberg pointed out that restrictive licensing might create a risky situation where companies could control the terms after a sale, potentially restricting consumer rights in a big way. He argued that enforcing ProCD’s licensing terms would reduce consumers’ control over what they bought, upsetting the basic ideas of ownership and fair use.

JUDGEMENT

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg upheld the shrinkwrap license agreement under contract law. The court ruled that Zeidenberg accepted the license conditions by opening and installing the software, indicating acceptance of the contractual terms included. The court ruled that ProCD gave Zeidenberg a chance to evaluate the terms and reject them by not opening or using the product, satisfying contract formation criteria. This verdict confirmed the court’s position that, in software transactions, a buyer’s actions after receiving the product—like downloading it—can imply acceptance of associated terms, even if they are disclosed later.

The court further stressed that shrinkwrap licensing safeguards software producers’ economic interests and encourages proprietary resource investment. The court allowed ProCD to charge commercial and non-commercial users differently, upholding its right to ensure its business model and govern product use. The ruling acknowledged that without these licensing restrictions, enterprises like ProCD would have little motivation to invest in vast database compilations, thereby lowering product quality and availability.

Finally, the court rejected Zeidenberg’s claims about consumer rights and anti-competitive practices, ruling that the license did not exceed reasonable consumer usage rights. The court acknowledged that ProCD’s prohibition on commercial use was a lawful way to ensure that users who profit commercially from the data pay correspondingly, balancing consumer access with equitable producer recompense. The court enforced the shrinkwrap license to set a precedent for comparable agreements in the software industry, where complex products require various licensing structures to safeguard intellectual property and meet diverse user expectations.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, the court’s ruling in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg confirmed that shrinkwrap licenses in software transactions are enforceable, meaning that when a user opens and installs a product, it can show that they agree to the terms that come with it. The court’s decision to side with ProCD highlighted that if license terms are easy to access and give consumers the chance to read and decline them before using the product, those terms can be seen as binding. This finding shows that companies can set rules for how their products are used, mainly when it’s essential to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial uses.

The ruling highlighted how crucial it is for businesses to safeguard their investments and intellectual property by using enforceable license agreements. The court acknowledged that these protections are essential for maintaining the economic models of companies such as ProCD, which depend on structuring pricing and usage rights to find a balance between accessibility and profitability. This protection encourages innovation, enabling producers to keep creating complex databases and other valuable resources without worrying that unrestricted use will harm their business.

The court’s decision sought to find a middle ground between consumer rights and corporate protections. It concluded that companies can establish reasonable limits on how their products are used as long as consumers clearly communicate and accept those terms. This case has been critical in confirming that shrinkwrap licenses are valid, setting a standard that has helped make software licensing agreements enforceable for various digital products and services.