- Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
- 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
- 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
- 17 U.S.C. § 302. The Constitution gave Congress the ability to create copyrights for a limited time. The idea was that it is vital for a democracy and also for commerce that, after that limited time, the work be release into the public domain. For example, the book Alice in Wonderland is currently in the public domain and has been published by several different publication houses. Not everyone things that life plus 70 years is a Constitutionally limited time. Current before the Supreme Court is litigation suggesting that such a copyright term is in fact excessive, unconstitutional, and should be reduced. Note that the term for works-for-hire is 95 years from first publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
- 17 U.S.C. Chapter 5 Copyright Infringement and Remedies.
- See also First Sale Doctrine: A purchaser of a copy may resell or otherwise disposed of a copy (unless it is a recording or a computer software program)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2319
- See also the Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act (criminalizing false WHOIS records)
- Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971);
- WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) (1996);
- WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (1996)
EFF: What is ACTA?
In October 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan simultaneously announced that they would negotiate a new intellectual property enforcement treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Canada have joined the negotiations. Although the proposed treaty's title might suggest that the agreement deals only with counterfeit physical goods (such as medicines), what little information has been made available publicly by negotiating governments about the content of the treaty makes it clear that it will have a far broader scope, and in particular, will deal with new tools targetting "Internet distribution and information technology". . . . .
Michael Geist: "The ACTA Threat"
ACTA Finally Released - Only after leaks exposed secret treaty anyway, dslreports 4/21/2010 ACTA Draft Text Released: (Nearly) Same As It Ever Was, Geist 4/21/2010 ACTA Raising Serious Constitutional Questions, Techdirt 3/26/2010 Report From The Field: ACTA Negotiations Not Going Well, Techdirt 3/26/2010 Complete ACTA text finally leaked, Ars Technica 3/24/2010 Dear President Obama: Get ACTA out in the open, CNET 3/19/2010 New ACTA Leaks: Criminal Enforcement, Institutional Issues, and International Cooperation, Geist 3/19/2010 Obama: We Must Move Forward On ACTA, Techdirt 3/12/2010 EU Parliament rejects secretive ACTA in vote for openness, CW 3/12/2010 ACTA's Internet Chapter Leaks; And, Now We See How Sneaky The Negotiators Have Been, Techdirt 2/25/2010 EU data protection chief slams secret ACTA talks, CW 2/22/2010 Leaked Document Summarizes January's ACTA Negotiations in Mexico, PK 2/22/2010 But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?, Techdirt 2/4/2010 ACTA One Step Closer To Being Done; Concerns About Transparency Ignored, Techdirt 2/1/2010 ACTA Moving Forward in "Secrecy", Circleid 2/1/2010 ACTA: International Harmonization at What Cost?, EFF 1/28/2010 Blogging ACTA Across The Globe: FFII's Ante Wessels on Exporting Europe's Flaws, EFF 1/28/2010 Adding up the explanations for ACTA's "shameful secret", Ars Technica 1/19/2010 Bits Of ACTA Agreement Leaking Out - EFF says it's everything they feared..., dslreports 11/4/2009 More ACTA Details Leak: It's An Entertainment Industry Wishlist, Techdirt 11/4/2009 Leaked ACTA Internet Provisions: Three Strikes and a Global DMCA, EFF 11/4/2009
- Intellectual Property, What is It? Stopfakes.gov
- US Copyright Office, Circular 4, Copyright Notice (June 1999).
- Library of Congress Circular 7d, Mandatory Deposit of Copies or Phonorecords for the Library of Congress (July 25, 2002).
- US Copyright Office, Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright PDF
- US Copyright Office, Circular 31, Ideas, Methods, or Systems (February 1998).
- MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (affirming "defendant peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast (maker of Morpheus) could be sued for inducing copyright infringement for acts taken in the course of marketing file sharing software." Wikipedia)
- Eldred v. Ashcroft, No. 01-618 (S.Ct. Argued Oct. 9, 2002). (claim that copyright extension is unconstitutional fails, but Ginsburg reaffirms centrality of fair use in traditional copyright) Stanford Cyberlaw
- New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, No. 00-201 (S.Ct. June 25, 2001). Free lance authors had written articles for inclusion in the New York Times. New York Times uploaded those articles to an electronic database, LEXIS/NEXIS. Authors sued arguing that the right to publish in the newspaper was not the same as the right to include the work in the electronic database. The Supreme Court agreed.
- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)
Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984) (VCRs time shift)
- Viacom v. YouTube (2nd Cir. Apr. 5, 2012) (" Appeal from the judgment of the United Sta tes District Court for the Southern District of New York (Louis L. Stanton, Judge ), granting summary judgment to the defendants-appellees on all claims of direct and secondary copyright infrin gement based on a finding that the defendants- appellees were entitled to safe harbor pro tection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512. Although the Dist rict Court correctly held that the § 512(c) safe harbor requires knowledge or awar eness of specific infringing activity, we vacate the order granting summary judgment because a reasonable jury coul d find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its websi te. We further hold that the District Court erred by interpreting the “right and ab ility to control” infringing activity to require “item-specific” knowledge. Finally, we affirm the District Court’s holding that three of the challenged YouTube software functions fall within the safe harbor for infringement that occurs “by reason of” storage at the direction of the user, and remand for further fact-finding with respect to a fourth software function. ")
- Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) ("Cablevision, a cable television provider, sought to create a hosted DVR (Digital Video Recorder) service. A consortium of copyright holders in the television and film industries sued for direct copyright infringement on the grounds of unlawful copying and public performance. The appeals court found that a) the automated copying of content at user request did not constitute direct infringement, b) Time shifting, or replaying content to the original audience, did not constitute public performance, and c) the copying of streaming content for the purposes of buffering did not itself constitute unlawful copying." Wikipedia)
- A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming in part and reversing in part injunction on defendant's MP3 file sharing service)
- Novak v Warner Bros Pictures, No. 08-56957 (9th Cir. July 15, 2010) ("historical facts are not protected by copyright")
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Feist Pub'lns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)).
- RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc.,180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999) "For the foregoing reasons, the Rio is not a digital audio recording device subject to the restrictions of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. The district court properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction against the Rio's manufacture and distribution."
- Recording Industry Association of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming that computers are exempt from payment pursuant to the Audio Home Recording Act - this Act imposed a 2% fee for DAT recordings payable to the Register of Copyrights).
- MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc . , 991 F.2nd 511, 518 (9th Cir 1993) (A computer repair person who was not a licensed owner of the computer, turned on the computer in order to check the error log. In so doing, the repair person loaded the system into RAM memory. According to the court, saving a copy of a work to RAM memory constituted a copy of the work.)
- PERSONAL KEEPSAKES, INC. v. PERSONALIZATIONMALL. COM, INC., Dist. Court, ND Ill. Sept. 24, 2013
- BREAKING GLASS PICTURES, LLC v. DOES 118-162, Dist. Court, D. Arizona 2013(IP address does not equal culpability and is insufficient grounds for discovery fishing expedition)
- THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED v. YOUTUBE, INC., Dist. Court, SD NY 2009 "Plaintiffs' Copyright Act claims for statutory damages are dismissed with respect to all foreign works which were not registered in the United States ("unregistered foreign works"), except those in suit under the "live broadcast exemption" in Section 411(c) of the Act."
- Sega Enterprises v. MAPHIA , 857 F. Supp 679, 682 (N.D. California 1994) (defendant was a bulletin board that permitted the sharing of gaming software. The court found defendant guilty of contributory infringement).
- Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena , 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla, 1993) (bulletin board owner permitted for a fee individuals to upload pictures to bulletin board; those pictures included 170 Playboy photos. Court ruled that defendant infringed plaintiff's exclusive right to distribute and display the photographs)
- Betamax Case,
- Robert Hendrickson v. Ebay, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 01-0495 RJK (RNBx) (C.D. Cal. 2001) Discussion Phillips Nizer Kent Law
- US DOC Request for Comments on Department of Commerce Green Paper, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy Date: September 30, 2013
- Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy USPTO July 2013 The U.S. Department of Commerce released a green paper titled "Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy" to advance discussion on policy issues critical to economic growth. The paper discusses ways to balance rights and exceptions, ensure meaningful copyright enforcement online, and further the online marketplace.
- Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Internet Economy
- USPTO & NTIA, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Internet Economy, 75 Fed. Reg. 72790 (November 26, 2010). The comments.
- USPTO & NTIA, Inquiry on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Internet Economy, 75 Fed. Reg. 61419 (Oct. 5, 2010)
- Remarks by Gary Locke, Secretary of Commerce, at the Internet Policy Task Force Symposium on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Internet Economy (July 1, 2010)
- Remarks by Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, Internet Policy Task Force Symposium on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Internet Economy (July 1, 2010)
- USPTO & NTIA, Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Internet Economy, 75 Fed. Reg. 33577 (June 14, 2010). An agenda from the symposium
- WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act & Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act: Hearing on H.R. 2281 & H.R. 2180 Before the Subcomm on Courts & Intell. Property of the House Comm. On Judiciary , 105th Cong. 33, at 78 (1997)
- Preregistration of Certain Unpublished Copyright Claims (Required IE usage), LOC 8/12/2005
- CDT and W3C Urge Copyright Office to Use Open Standards, CDT 8/30/2005
- Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure , The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (1995)
- Wu, Tim, Intellectual Property Experimentalism by Way of Competition Law (January 1, 2014). 9 Competition Policy Int'l 30 (2013).
- COPYRIGHT IN THE DIGITAL ERA: BUILDING EVIDENCE FOR POLICY (National Research Council, National Academies 2013) (Stephen A. Merrill & William J. Raduchel, eds.),
- The Copy Culture Survey: Infringement and Enforcement in the US, The American Assembly 2011
- Mark E. Harrington , On-line Copyright Infringement Liability for Internet Service Providers: Context, Cases & Recently Enacted Legislation , 1999 B.C. Intell. Prop. & Tech. F. 060499
- Timothy Phillips, The Unconstitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (nd)
- See Larry Lessig, CODE