by scanning into electronic form the text, original illustrations, and cover art of its publications. (Paper 8 at 13). It is well-established that photocopying a copyrighted work without the owner’s permission infringes the owner’s right of reproduction. See Princeton Univ. v. Michigan Document Svcs., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1156, 117 S.Ct. 1336, 137 L.Ed.2d 495 (1997). Although Defendant used a scanner to create a digital copy of a work, rather than a photocopier to print a physical copy, the methods of copying are equivalent and they are both infringing. A digital copy made without the owner’s permission is copyright infringement. See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Defendant has infringed Plaintiffs
holding that the use of copies or derivatives of copies of copyrighted technical drawings to manufacture a machine did not constitute an act of copyright infringement holding grokster not eontributorily liable for copyright infringement by users of its p2p file sharing program holding companies contributorily liable for copyright infringement for facilitating users transmissions of unauthorized digital copies of copyrighted works holding that the manufacture of a machine from a copyrighted technical drawing is clearly not copyright infringement holding that because literary works including compilations and derivative works are within the subject matter of copyright state common law that purported to protect a work for which plaintiffs copyright action was unsuccessful was preempted