- Biotechnology (3)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Copyright (5)
- Cyber Law (3)
- E-Commerce (1)
- Evidence (1)
Online Edition Articles - Copyright
Recent Development: MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment: Preventing the Use of Software Robots in an Online Game With Copyright Law
NC JOLT Online Edition, Volume 10, Page 1 (November 2008)
Abstract
In MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment, the United States District Court of Arizona had an opportunity to clarify the concept of ownership in software copyright law. The MDY court held that users of Blizzard’s computer video game do not own the physical copies of the game software and thus can only load the game software into their computer’s memory, subject to Blizzard’s license. Several players of Blizzard’s computer video game used software manufactured by MDY Industries in conjunction with the game—a use prohibited by Blizzard’s license. The MDY court held that, by violating Blizzard’s license, these users committed copyright infringement. MDY Industries was also found liable for contributory copyright infringement. Although the MDY court stated that they were applying Ninth Circuit precedent, the court actually applied a significantly more expansive test for determining ownership.
Full Article Text
Subject Areas:
Recent Development: Jacobsen v. Katzer: Failure of the Artistic License and Repercussions for Open Source
NC JOLT Online Edition, Volume 9, Page 65 (July 2008)
Abstract
The case of Jacobsen v. Katzer is among the earliest to consider the enforceability of open source software licenses, and is therefore of key interest to the open source community. To the disappointment of that community, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that an open source project creator could pursue a breach of contract claim but not a copyright infringement claim against a defendant for violating the project’s license terms. However, Jacobsen should not be read to suggest a general judicial approach to all open source licenses, but rather as confirmation of the long-thought weakness of the Artistic License. Jacobsen suggests the relevant legal rules could be improved to create a stronger presumption of copyright enforceability for open source licenses as well as a clear ability to enforce nonstandard open source license terms under contract.
Recent Development: A Bill Without Bite: Why Effective Copyright Monitoring Was Not a Fair Trade-Off for Making College More Affordable
NC JOLT Online Edition, Volume 9, Page 46 (December 2007)
Abstract
Senator Harry Reid proposed S. 1642, an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965. This amendment was a diluted version of his original amendment, S.A. 2314, which was proposed as an addition to the College Cost Reduction Act. Each of these amendments proposed procedures that would work to monitor copyright infringement more effectively on college campuses, especially in the areas of peer-to-peer sharing and digital downloading. Under constitutional standards established in South Dakota v. Dole, Senator Reid's original amendment would not have passed constitutional muster, as its purpose was not reasonably related to the stated governmental interest. The purpose of the College Cost Reduction Act is to make college more affordable. Cutting college costs is unrelated to the goal of effectively monitoring copyright infringement, and therefore Congress would seem to be attempting to sneak a control on peer-to-peer sharing through a seemingly innocuous and beneficial statute. The possible constitutional problem, combined with the public outcry in response to S.A. 2314, resulted in the watered-down version now sitting as a potential amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965. However, as Congress is continually trying to adjust copyright monitoring to advances in technology, the concerns voiced by the public and by Senator Reid have not been completely resolved.
Subject Areas:
Recent Development: Perfect 10 and Contributory Liability: Can Search Engines Survive?
NC JOLT Online Edition, Volume 9, Page 1 (December 2007)
Abstract
Search engines allow millions of users to locate content on the Internet, including content offered by individuals and companies who have infringed upon a copyright holder’s rights. Copyright Law’s contributory infringement doctrine presents a dilemma for search engines like Google, whose services may facilitate the infringement of copyrights by enabling users to locate such content on the Internet. The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. highlights the problems associated with contributory liability doctrine in copyright law in the digital era. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court, holding that “reasonable and feasible” means were available to Google, enabling it to block access on its search engine to content that violates a copyright holder’s rights. This recent development illustrates some of the problems of applying the standard of contributory liability to search engines on the Internet.
Recent Development: Flattery or Fraud: Should Fashion Designs Be Granted Copyright Protection?
NC JOLT Online Edition, Volume 8, Page 1 (February 2007)
Abstract
No abstract available.
Full Article Text
Subject Areas:
