• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
 
ADVANCED COPYRIGHT ISSUESON THE INTERNET
 
David L. Hayes, Esq.
*
 
F
ENWICK
&
 
W
EST LLP
 
*
Chairman of Intellectual Property Practice Group, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View & San Francisco,California. B.S.E.E. (Summa Cum Laude), Rice University (1978); M.S.E.E., Stanford University (1980); J.D.(Cum Laude), Harvard Law School (1984). An earlier version of this paper appeared in David L. Hayes,“Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet,” 7 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1 (Fall 1998).© 1997-2008 David L. Hayes. All Rights Reserved.(Updated as of July 2008)
 
- 2 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 10II. RIGHTS IMPLICATED BY TRANSMISSION AND USEOF WORKS ON THE INTERNET 12A. The Right of Reproduction 131. The Ubiquitous Nature of “Copies” on the Internet 132. Whether Images of Data Stored in RAM Qualify as “Copies” 143. The WIPO Treaties & the European Copyright Directive AreUnclear With Respect to Interim “Copies” 18(a) Introduction to the WIPO Treaties & the EuropeanCopyright Directive 18(b) The WIPO Copyright Treaty 21(c) The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 244. Whether Volition Is Required for Direct Liability 26(a) The Netcom Case 28(b) The MAPHIA Case 30(c) The Sabella Case 31(d) The Frena Case 32(e) The Webbworld Case 33(f) The Sanfilippo Case 34(g) The Free Republic Case 35(h) The MP3.com Cases 37(i) The CoStar Case 40(j) The Ellison Case 42(k) Perfect 10 v. Cybernet Ventures 42(l) Field v. Google 42(m) Parker v. Google 44(n) Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cablevision Sys. 44(o) Summary of Case Law; Legislative Safe Harbors Underthe DMCA 465. The Reproduction Right Under WIPO Implementing Legislation 47(a) United States Legislation 47(1) The Digital Millennium Copyright Act 47(2) Legislation Not Adopted 48(b) The European Copyright Directive 496. Peer-to-Peer File Sharing 55(a) BMG Music v. Gonzalez 55(b) Columbia Pictures v. Bunnell 567. The Immunity of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) 56(a) The Napster Cases 57(b) Atlantic Recording Corp. v. XM Satellite Radio 57B. The Right of Public Performance 59
 
- 3 -1. Isochronous Versus Asynchronous Transmissions 612. The Meaning of “Publicly” 623. Live Nation Motor Sports v. Davis 625. United States v. ASCAP 63C. The Right of Public Display 631. The Frena, Marobie-FL, Hardenburgh, and Webbworld Cases 642. Kelly v. Arriba Soft 653. Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com 694. Perfect 10 v. Google 695. Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey 816. ICG-Internet Ccommerce Group, Inc. v. Wolf 82D. The Right of Public Distribution 831. The Requirement of a “Copy” 83(a) Cases Addressing Whether Mere Posting Is a Distribution 84(1) Cases Holding That Mere Posting Is a Distribution 85(2) Cases Holding That Mere Posting Is Not a Distribution 882. The Requirement of a “Public” Distribution 953. The Requirement of a Rental or Transfer of Ownership 954. The Right of Distribution Under the WIPO Treaties 965. The Right of Distribution Under WIPO Implementing Legislation 97(a) United States Legislation 97(b) The European Copyright Directive 97E. The Right of Importation 98F. The New Right of Transmission and Access Under theWIPO Treaties 991. The Right of Communication to the Public in the WIPOCopyright Treaty 992.. The Right of Making Available to the Public in the WIPOPerformances and Phonograms Treaty 1013. The Right of Transmission and Access Under WIPOImplementing Legislation 102(a) United States Legislation 102(b) The European Copyright Directive 103G. New Rights and Provisions Under the Digital Millennium CopyrightAct, the European Copyright Directive & Legislation That Did Not Pass 1051. Circumvention of Technological Measures and RightsManagement Information 105(a) United States Legislation – The DMCA 106(1) Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures 107(i) Prohibition on Conduct 107a. Exemptions Adopted by the Librarian of Congress 107
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...