There has been tremendous attention devoted to the medium of the Internet. However, the technologies that constitute the Web have created a legal environment that has and will continue to compel changes in traditional approaches to several issues, including copyright. The objective of this article is to review and discuss case and statutory law in copyright policy recently developed in the context of network technologies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
A & M Records Inc. v. Internet Site Known as Fresh Kutz et al. (1997), 97-CV-1099H (Southern District of California, June 10).
2.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company v. New York University (1983), 2 Copyright Law Reporter 25544.
3.
America Online v. Web Communications (1998), 98-CV-289 (Eastern District of Virginia, filed March 2).
4.
Basic Books Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp. (1991), 758 F. Supp. 1522.
5.
Blackburn v. Walker (1998), 999 F. Supp. 636.
6.
Bright Tunes Music Inc. v. Harrisongs Music Inc. (1976), 420 F. Supp. 177.
7.
Central Point Software Inc. v. Nugent (1996), 903 F. Supp. 1057.
8.
Cinco Network et al. v. Butler (1996), C96–1146 (Western District of Washington, July 23).
9.
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C., Secs. 101 et seq.
10.
Creative Labs Inc. v. Cyrix Corp. (1997), 43 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1778.
11.
Danjaq S.A. v. MGM/UA Communications Co. (1991), 773 F. Supp. 194.
12.
Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act (1997), S. 1146, introduced September 3, 1997 (under consideration by the Senate as of March 11, 1998).
13.
Digital Era Copyright Enhancement Act (1997), H.R. 3048, introduced November 13, 1997 (under consideration by the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property as of November 24, 1997).
14.
Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998 (1998), S. 2037, introduced May 6, passed in Senate May 14, 1998.
15.
Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (1995), Public Law No. 104–39.
16.
Dismukes v. Department of Interior (1984), 603 F. Supp. 760.
17.
Expert Pages v. Buckalew (1997), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12205 (August 6).
18.
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991), 499 U.S. 340.
19.
Frank Music Corp. v. CompuServe Inc. (1993), No. 93 Civ. 8153 (SDNY)
20.
FrostRobin (1996), “Web's Heavy U.S. Accent Grates on Overseas Ears,”The Wall Street Journal, (August 26), B4+.
21.
Futuredontic Inc. v. Applied Anagrams Inc. (1998), CV 97–6991 (United States District Court for the Central District of California).
22.
Government Patent Policy Act (1980), Public Law No. 96–517, § 10(a).
23.
GreenwaldJohn (1998), “Heroes of a Wild and Crazy Stock Ride,”Time, (July 20), 42–43.
Iowa State University Research Foundation v. American Broadcasting Co. (1980), 621 F. 2d 57.
32.
KantrowitzBarbara, CohenAndrew, and LiuMelinda (1994), “My Info is NOT Your Info,”Newsweek, (July 18), 54.
33.
LeibowitzWendy R. (1997), “The Internet Blunts TM Protection,”National Law Journal, (February 10), B1.
34.
Los Angeles News Service v. Reuters Television (1998), 97–55113, (9th Cir.).
35.
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc. (1993), 991 F. 2d 511.
36.
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc. (1994), certiorari dismissed, 114 S.Ct. 671.
37.
Manufacturers Technologies Inc. v. Cams Inc. (1989), 706 F. Supp. 984.
38.
Marobie v. NAFED (1997), 983 F. Supp. 1167 (November 13).
39.
Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group Inc. (1998), CV 98–0583 DDP (April 27).
40.
NeubarthMichael (1995), “The Internet: A Global Look,”Internet World, 6(November), 95.
41.
No Electronic Theft (NET) Act (1997), P.S. 105–147.
42.
On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Act; WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act, (1997), H.R. 2281, introduced July 29, 1997 (under consideration by the House of Representatives as of July 22, 1998).
43.
Playboy v. Frena (1993), 839 F. Supp. 1552.
44.
Playboy v. Hardenburgh (1997), 982 F. Supp. 503 (November 25).
45.
Playboy v. Webbworld (1997), 968 F. Supp. 1171 (July 27).
46.
Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.Net Inc. (1995), 901 F. Supp. 1519 (D. Colorado).
47.
Religious Technology Center v. Lerma et al. (1995), 897 F. Supp. 260 (E.D. Virginia).
48.
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communications Services et al. (1995), 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. California).
49.
Scanlon v. Kessler et al. (1998), 97 CV-1140 (July 10).
50.
Sega Enterprises Inc. v. MAPHIA (1994), 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921.
51.
Sega Enterprises Inc. v. MAPHIA (1996), 948 F. Supp. 923.
52.
SmedinghoffThomas J. (1997), “Liability for Conduct of Others,” inOnline Law: The SPA's Legal Guide to Doing Business on the Internet, SmedinghoffThomas J., ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,461–74.
53.
SonyMusic Entertainment v. Internet Site (1997), 97 CIV 4245 (Southern District of New York, June 6).
54.
SPA (Software Publishers Association) (1998), “SPA Nabs Two Students for Copyright Infringement Credits Teamwork with School Officials,” press release, (March 10) [http://www.spa.org/piracy/releases/andrews.htm].
55.
StapletonM.A. (1997), “Playboy Settles Internet ‘Framing’ Trademark Case,”Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, (May 21), 1.
56.
State of Ohio v. Perry (1997), 41 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA 1989).
57.
StocktonMarie M. (1997) “Protecting Copyrights in Cyberspace: Holding Anonymous Remailer Services Contributorily Liable for Infringement,”Thomas W. Cooley Law Review, 14(2), 317–49.
58.
Storm Impact v. Software of the Month Club (1997), No. 95 C 2154 (Northern District of Illinois, September 3).
59.
Subafilms Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co. (1994), 871 F. 3d 1088.
60.
Ticketmaster v. Microsoft (1997), 97–3055 DDP (Central District of California, filed April 29).
61.
TurnerAlison (1995), “Firm Claims Plagiarism; Sues Internet Competitor,”South Florida Business Journal, 16(December 1), 5A.
