Let us not forget, that the entire basis for copyright holders is to make money to pay for things. And, our entire monetary construct that we use today is itself based in unconstitutional acts, fraud, usury, and infected by many parasitical entities. It is these conditions that create the difficult situation that affects the basic survival for the majority of the population of this planet. These conditions make it difficult to survive, and therefore corruption begets corruption. That is not to say, that corruption is an excuse for copyright infringement. It does say, that the desperation and fear people have about the source of their bread and butter, being "stolen" from them, stems from the conditions created by all this corruption.

As people continue to live within such a screwed up economic construct, it is logical that eventually all things creative or productive will be held close to the vest. Especially when individual people have devoted their entire lives to a particular area of experience, instead of having a broad experiential base from which to create from. For the means of survival become few and far between. When creativity is obstructed, by desperate clinging-on to past efforts, and therefore a lack of sharing amongst each other, there will be a decreasing amount of new creations.

If you prevent your child from emulating you, from learning from your past creations/expressions, then you deny your child the springboard of your self. The child has to re-invent the wheel, so to speak. This is a typical behavior in many areas of society. Consider a job site, where a particular contractor has a foreman running the job. If that foreman refuses to teach the apprentices, out of fear of losing his position to one of the apprentices, then eventually you have a contracting company that grows discord and ignorance. The general skill level of your crews drops, the performance drops, the abilities to complete a task drops. If the experienced retire, or get hurt, or leave for whatever reason, you have a bunch of unskilled people. Or people with few skills, left running the show. That's just stupid.

People get easy in the saddle, and they don't want things to change. The reason they don't want things to change is because surviving has become difficult, due to all the corruption and abuse that is reverberating throughout society. When that is allowed to continue, you get desperate people, who will cling on to every creative expression like its the last creative expression on earth. That only helps to manifest that condition on earth. Fear begets fear.

People lose sight of the bigger picture when they narrow their view/perception to paying their personal bills. They are either unaware of all the corrupt bullshit that is making their daily lives a living hell, or they let their sensory feedback override their awareness.

You have to look at the context of the situation, to see that personal fear and desperation are contributing to keeping you and everyone else in the same repeating cycle of behavior. There is a better way, but you have to set aside the fear and desperation long enough to see it.

The argument about copyright being the same as theft, goes round and round with ignorance leading the discussion. Consider, you make a song. You spent a specific amount of creativity, imagination, skill, experience, and time in producing the resultant effect/product. Then you expect people to repeatedly pay you for that finite amount of creativity, imagination, skill, experience, and time. Meanwhile, in almost every other profession, practice, or hobby, people must repeat the same amount of creativity, imagination, skill, experience, and time, to re-produce a product/service. Yet people who cling onto the copyright expect everyone else to repeatedly pay for one expression they performed sometime in the past.

Please don't think that I am unfamiliar with the artistic process. I am not. In fact, everyone pretty much has some similar experience with not being given credit or compensation for some past works, in one way or another. It is the hearts desire to be able to "make a living" doing what you love. Yet you want to make exchanges with others who may or may not be doing what they love to do. An exchange is a real exchange, if what is being exchanged has equal value, in the eyes of each other. If it does not, then it is fraud.

~~~

Reminder 1: Copyright Monopoly Infringement Isn’t Stealing (Says The US Supreme Court) - Falkvinge on Infopolicy

http://falkvinge.net/2013/12/23/reminder-1-copyright-monopoly-infringement-isnt-stealing-says-the-us-supreme-court/

Lawyers defending the copyright monopoly love to throw false analogies around, even when those analogies have been explicitly rejected by Supreme Courts. It would be an understatement to call this practice dishonest.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case Dowling vs United States, the Supreme Court explicitly valued whether copies could be regarded as stolen goods under the law, and held that they could not.

Instead, “interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ‘[] an infringer of the copyright.'”

There is absolutely no reason to accept this fallacy, especially not from a copyright industry lawyer, who should know better (and deserves getting that pointed out).

Now, even if the US Supreme Court had said something differently, it would still not be stealing from a philosophical, political, economical, or moral angle. The US Supreme Court adds the judicial angle to this, which is useful against lawyers and corporations, specifically.

UPDATE: As Mikael Nilsson points out in the comments, courts have even grown so tired of this false and dishonest rhetoric from the copyright industry that courts have explicitly banned the copyright industry from using “stealing” and similar words in their argumentation. While that wasn’t the Supreme Court, it still bears mentioning.

~~~

Copyright infringement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

The terms piracy and theft are often associated with copyright infringement.[4][5] The original meaning of piracy is "robbery or illegal violence at sea",[6] but the term has been in use for centuries as a synonym for acts of copyright infringement.[7][8] Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft.[1]

In the case MPAA v. Hotfile, Judge Kathleen Williams granted a motion to deny the prosecution the usage of pejorative words in the copyright infringement case.[3] This list included the words "piracy," "theft," "stealing," and their derivatives—the use of which, even if the defendants had been found to have directly infringed on the Plaintiffs’ copyrights, the defense asserted, would serve no purpose but to misguide and inflame the jury.[2] The plaintiff argued the common use of the terms when referring to copyright infringement should invalidate the motion, but the judge did not concur.[3] (The case was settled shortly before it reached the jury phase of the trial.[9])

...

"Theft"

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[12] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft. For instance, the United States Supreme Court held in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.[1]

~~~

Dowling v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States

Background

Paul Edmond Dowling ran a bootleg recording business distributing Elvis Presley records through the United States Postal Service. Dowling, a zealous Presley fan, worked with William Samuel Theaker to produce records of unreleased Presley recordings such as those from concerts and television shows. The two men used the services of a record-pressing company in Burbank, Los Angeles County, California.

Dowling's trial and appeals

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (July 2013)

The federal government brought its initial case against Dowling in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, arguing his guilt on the basis that he had no legal authority to distribute the records. Dowling was convicted of one count of conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce, eight counts of interstate transportation of stolen property, nine counts of copyright infringement, and three counts of mail fraud. The charges of mail fraud arose out of his use of the United States Postal Service to distribute the records.

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions. From the Reporter of Decision's syllabus:

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

The vast majority of the tapes Dowling used were not copyrighted and it took the FBI years to find five or six songs that were. Had Dowling put aside a bank account for royalties no charges could have been brought against him or Theaker. Their involvement with Minor was simple - Minor was copying everyone's legal and "illegal" LP's including Dowling -Theaker's so they decided to sell theirs to him at a discounted rate. There were actually two judges in the original trial. One suffered heart problems and had to be excused and replaced by Manuel Real, a liberal Judge who always handed out severe penalties. Had Dowling and Theaker been "sentenced" by the original judge no jail time would have been the result.[citation needed]

Dowling later (in 1992) was hired by RCA in New York to help them with many CD releases on Elvis. He also was flown to California to produce a That's the Way It Is CD for Mobile Fidelity. He still helps RCA out to this day (2012). He has been working on (in cooperation with BMG / Sony who owns the RCA label now) the complete Worldwide Elvis Vinyl Discography which so far is around 4000 pages. This mammoth work details every Elvis Presley RCA 78, single, Extended Play and LP that was issued in over 60 countries. A major New York book company will be publishing it possibly in 2013.[citation needed]

~~~

United States v. LaMacchia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._LaMacchia

United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 (D.Mass. 1994) was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law.

The ruling gave rise to what became known as the LaMacchia Loophole which is that criminal charges of fraud or copyright infringement would be dismissed under current legal standards, so long as there was no profit motive involved.[2] The court's ruling explicitly drew attention to the shortcomings of current law that allowed people to facilitate mass copyright infringement while being immune to prosecution under the Copyright Act. The NET Act, passed in 1997, was a direct response to the "LaMacchia Loophole." The law provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement even when there is no commercial benefit from the infringement.

...

Facts

The defendant in the case was David LaMacchia, a 21-year-old student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at that time.[3] Under pseudonyms and using an encrypted address, LaMacchia set up an electronic bulletin board which he dubbed Cynosure. He then encouraged people to upload copyrighted software applications and computer games to the board, which he subsequently transferred to another encrypted address called Cynosure II, where the software could be accessed and downloaded freely by anyone with access to the Cynosure password. LaMacchia encouraged his correspondents to exercise caution when accessing the site, but despite his best efforts to avoid detection, the heavy traffic to his site drew the attention of university and government authorities.[2]

Indictment and motion to dismiss

On April 7, 1994, LaMacchia was indicted by a federal grand jury for "conspiring with unknown people" to violate 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343, the wire fraud statute. The indictment held that LaMacchia had devised a scheme to defraud the software manufacturers and copyright owners whose software had been distributed on Cynosure without paying proper licensing fees and royalties, thereby causing losses totaling over one million USD. There was no allegation that LaMacchia had derived any personal profit from the scheme, which is why the indictment was not made on grounds of copyright infringement.[2]

In response to the indictment, LaMacchia brought a motion to dismiss on September 30, 1994, under the argument that the government was misapplying the wire fraud statute and attempting to use it as a copyright enforcement tool. LaMacchia made reference to Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) in his motion, arguing that the case held that "copyright prosecutions for alleged copyright infringement must be brought, if at all, under the Copyright Act, and cannot be brought under statutes enacted by Congress to prohibit interstate theft and fraud".[4] The reasoning in Dowling v. United States was that the transfer of a copyright is different from the transfer of physical property in that unlike the owner of ordinary chattel, the holder of a copyright does not "acquire exclusive dominion over the thing owned".[5] Therefore, LaMacchia argued, the prosecution must be brought under copyright law, and not under claims of wire fraud.[2]

Court decision

In its ruling, the court upheld the Dowling decision that copyright prosecutions should only be brought under Section 506 of the Copyright Act, which did not at the time apply to cases not involving commercial profit from infringement. Therefore, LaMacchia was not held liable for criminal copyright infringement under the wire fraud statute, and the case was concluded. This ruling does not preclude LaMacchia from being prosecuted under a civil suit as it specifically applies to criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act.[2]

The court considered the wire fraud statute in analyzing the case. The wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343, has jurisdiction over "any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises".[6] The word "or" in this specification implies two separate offenses possible under the statute, the first of which is simply the devising of a scheme to defraud, and not necessarily an attempt to obtain money or property by false pretenses. Therefore, unlike 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a), which outlines the criminal copyright statute, wire fraud does not require a defendant to have sought personal profit in the scheme to defraud.[2]

Remembering the Dowling precedent, the court considered that a nondisclosure or concealment of activities from copyright holders with the objective of depriving them of due royalties or licensing fees may serve as a basis for a fraudulent scheme. A stipulation was made that a "non-disclosure can only serve as a basis for a fraudulent scheme when there exists an independent duty that has been breached by the person so charged", which can include either a fiduciary duty or an explicit statutory duty. The court then found a fundamental difference between the cases of Dowling and LaMacchia. Neither party held any fiduciary duty to the copyright owners, but Dowling had a statutory duty as specified by the Copyright Act requiring that vendors notify copyright owners of any intention to manufacture and distribute song records (which were the physical goods in question). In the case of LaMacchia, however, no such independent statutory duty of disclosure exists because there was no analogous compulsory software licensing scheme. LaMacchia was therefore not guilty of defrauding the copyright holders, which addresses the claims of wire fraud.[2]

NET Act

Although the court ruled that the Supreme Court decision in Dowling v. United States precluded LaMacchia's prosecution for criminal copyright infringement, Justice Richard Stearns, while writing the memorandum, stated that "If the indictment is to be believed, one might at best describe [LaMacchia's] action's as heedlessly irresponsible, and at worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lacking in any fundamental sense of values." He noted that this ruling was a result of a shortcoming of copyright law and that it was the power of the legislature rather than the Court to modify the law to prevent such a crime to go unpunished.[2] Stearns also said that that it was impossible to prosecute LaMacchia under the then-present felony wire-fraud statutes unless the government made criminal "the myriad of home computer users who succumb to the temptation to copy even a single software program for private use."[1]

This loophole became known as the LaMacchia Loophole, and the No Electronic Theft Act was passed in 1997 to close the loophole. The NET Act modifies 17 U.S.C., Chapter 5, to include some forms of non-commercial infringement in its definition of criminal infringement.[3] For example, if the infringer has made ten or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value over $2,500 within a period of 180 days, even without any private gain, this would constitute a felony punishable by up to five years of imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $250,000.[7]

~~~

MPAA Banned From Using Piracy and Theft Terms in Hotfile Trial - TorrentFreak

https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/

By Ernesto on November 29, 2013

C: 123

Leading up to the trial, Hotfile has scored several significant wins against the MPAA. The Florida federal court ruled on several motions this week, and many went in favor of the file-hosting service. Most prominently, Judge Kathleen Williams decided that the movie studios and its witnesses are not allowed to use “pejorative” terms including “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” during the upcoming proceedings.

The ongoing legal battle between Hotfile and the MPAA is nearing its climax.

In August the movie studios won summary judgment on the issues of DMCA defense and vicarious liability, while the file-hosting site was cleared of direct copyright infringement. The remaining issues, including the damages amount, will be decided during a trial early next month.

In preparation for the trial both parties have submitted motions to the court in recent weeks. Hotfile, for example, asked the court to prevent the MPAA from using “pejorative” terms including piracy, theft and stealing as these could misguide the jury.

District Court Judge Kathleen Williams has now ruled on these motions, with the file-hosting service scoring several important victories.

The Judge granted Hotfile’s “pejorative” terms motion, which means that the movie studios and its witnesses are not allowed to use words including “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” during the trial.

“Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Use of Pejorative Terms is GRANTED IN PART. The parties may not use pejorative terms but may use terms of art,” the order reads.

pejor

The file-hosting service previously argued that since piracy and theft-related terms are derogatory, their use could mislead the jury and possibly influence their judgment. According to Hotfile there is no ground to substantiate the use of such terms.

“In the present case, there is no evidence that the Defendants (or Hotfile’s founders) are ‘pirates’ or ‘thieves,’ nor is there evidence that they were ‘stealing’ or engaged in ‘piracy’ or ‘theft.’ Even if the Defendants had been found to have directly infringed on the Plaintiffs’ copyrights, such derogatory terms would add nothing to the Plaintiffs’ case, but would serve to improperly inflame the jury.”

The MPAA countered that there is absolutely no reason to exclude words that are commonly used in cases related to copyright infringement. Banning the terms would make it hard for MPAA’s lawyers and the witnesses to describe the events that took place, according to the movie studios.

“Terms like ‘piracy’ and ‘theft’ are commonplace terms often used in court decisions, statutes, and everyday speech to describe the conduct in which Hotfile and its users engaged, and for which the Court has already found Defendants liable,” MPAA’s legal team wrote.

With her ruling Judge Williams clearly sides with Hotfile’s argument that the jury could be misled by piracy and theft-related descriptions. This is a clear win for the file-hosting service, but it also leads to the awkward situation that several witnesses can’t name their job titles, such as Warner’s head of Global Corporate Anti-Piracy.

Additionally, the MPAA can no longer quote Vice President Joe Biden’s famous comment: “Piracy is theft, clean and simple.”

The full list of motions Judge Williams ruled on includes more good news for Hotfile. For example, with regard to Hotfile’s countersuit over alleged DMCA abuse by the movie studio, Warner’s motions to exclude the term “perjury” and the studio’s audit of its anti-piracy system from trial were both denied.

On the downside, Hotfile’s request to prevent the MPAA from bringing up the criminal indictment against “Megaupload” was denied. This means that in describing the Megaupload case the movie studios can’t quote passages that reference piracy or theft.

It will be interesting to see how the MPAA tackles Hotfile now that they are restricted in the language they can use. It probably means that the term “copyright infringement” will be used more often than they had hoped.

To be continued.

~~~

United States copyright case law - Wikisource, the free online library

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Portal:United_States_copyright_case_law

Supreme Court rulings are binding precedent across the United States; Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts.

Case name Citation Court Year Subject, important findings

Wheaton v. Peters 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 S. Ct. 1834 There is no such thing as common law copyright and one must observe the formalities to secure a copyright.

Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 99 S. Ct. 1879 Idea-expression divide.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony 111 U.S. 53 S. Ct. 1884 Extended copyright protection to photography.

Banks v. Manchester 128 U.S. 244 S. Ct. 1888 Expressions of law cannot be copyrighted.

Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus 210 U.S. 339 S. Ct. 1908 No license to use copyrighted material. License cannot extend holder’s rights beyond statute defined by Congress.

Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell 229 U.S. 1 S. Ct. 1913 Differences between patent and copyright defined also prohibits a license from extending holder’s rights beyond statute.

Macmillan Co. v. King 223 F. 862 D. Mass. 1914 Limits of fair use with respect to an educational context and to summaries.

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Co. 45 F.2d 119 2d Cir. 1930 No copyright for “stock characters”.

Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. 196 Misc. 67, 80 N.Y.S.2d 575 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948), aff'd 275 A.D. 692, 87 N.Y.S.2d 430 (1949) N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948–9 No moral rights in public domain works.

National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications 191 F.2d 594 (1951), clarified 198 F.2d 927 (1952) 2d Cir. 1951–2 Derivative works; an author does not forfeit his copyright to a piece of intellectual property if his work is contracted to another who fails to properly copyright works which incorporate the original property (obsoleted by Copyright Act of 1976).

Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc. 329 F. 2d 541 2d Cir. 1964 Parody.

Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States 487 F.2d 1345 Ct. Cl. 1973 Libraries’ photocopying for research was fair use.

Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman 669 F.2d 852 2d Cir. 1982 Copyright on computer programs includes images and sounds as well as the computer code.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. 714 F.2d 1240 3rd Cir. 1983 Computer software is protected by copyright (affirmed and obsoleted by subsequent legislation).

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (the "Betamax case") 464 U.S. 417 S. Ct. 1984 Products with substantial non-infringing uses (e.g. video recorders) may be sold even if they can be used to infringe.

Dowling v. United States 473 U.S. 207 S. Ct. 1985 Copyright infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud; illegally made copies are not stolen goods.

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539 S. Ct. 1985 The interest served by republication of a public figure's account of an event is not sufficient to permit nontransformative fair use.

Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc. 780 F.2d 189 2d Cir. 1985 Rule of the shorter term not applied to toys without an overseas copyright

Fisher v. Dees 794 F.2d 432 9th Cir. 1986 Parody of song performance is legitimate fair use

Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. 663 F. Supp. 706 S.D.N.Y. 1987 Derivative works.

Anderson v. Stallone 11 USPQ2D 1161 C.D. Cal 1989 Derivative works.

Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid 490 U.S. 730 S. Ct. 1989 Works made for hire.

Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation 758 F. Supp. 1522 S.D.N.Y. 1991 Articles copied for educational use are not necessarily fair use.

Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp 925 F.2d 670 3d Cir. 1991 The sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp 929 F.2d 1147, 1150 6th Cir. 1991 The sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service 499 U.S. 340 S. Ct. 1991 "Sweat of the brow" alone is not sufficient to bestow copyright.

Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. 780 F. Supp. 182 S.D.N.Y. 1991 Music sampling is generally copyright infringement.

Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology 939 F.2d 91 3rd Cir. 1991 The need to characterize the transaction as a license to use software is “largely anachronistic”.

Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc. 982 F.2d 693 2d Cir. 1992 “Substantial similarity” is required for copyright infringement to occur.

Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. 780 F. Supp. 1283 9th Cir. 1992 Consumers may modify purchased computer games for their own use.

Rogers v. Koons 960 F.2d 301 2d Cir. 1992 Fair use and parody.

MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. 991 F.2d 511 9th Cir. 1993 RAM ("working memory") copies of computer programs are governed by copyright.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. 35 F.3d 1435 9th Cir. 1994 Certain components of computer programs' graphical user interfaces are not copyrightable.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569 S. Ct. 1994 Commercial parody can be fair use.

Carter v. Helmsley-Spear Inc. 861 F. Supp. 303 S.D.N.Y. 1994 Interpreting moral rights provisions of U.S. Visual Artists Rights Act (overturned for other reasons: 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 1824 (1996)).

Lotus v. Borland 49 F.3d 807 1st Cir. 1995 Software interfaces per se are "methods of operation" and are not covered by copyright.

Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church 59 F.3d 902, 910 9th Cir. 1995 Renewal rights are not assignable.

Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart 976 Supp. 149, 155 E.D.N.Y. 1997 The sale of software is the sale of a good. Case was dropped.

Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. 153 F.3d 82 2d Cir. 1998 Jurisdiction with closest association to putative owner applies to determine copyright ownership.

Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 S.D.N.Y. 1999 "Slavish copying" is inherently uncreative and cannot confer copyright.

Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. 194 F.3d 1211 11th Cir. 1999 Giving a public speech is not public-domain publication under the Copyright Act of 1909.

Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. 2000 US Dist. Lexis. 9975 SD Tex. 2000 The first-sale doctrine applies to computer software.

UMG v. MP3.com 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5761 S.D.N.Y. 2000 Distribution of copyrighted music without permission of the copyright holders is infringement even if the downloader already owns a copy of the music.

A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. 239 F.3d 1004 9th Cir. 2001 Knowingly failing to take steps to prevent infringement, while benefiting from said infringement, is grounds for contributory infringement. Also, users of file-sharing services infringe by both uploading and downloading works without permission.

New York Times Company v. Tasini 533 U.S. 483 S. Ct. 2001 Freelance journalists did not grant electronic republication rights for collective work.

SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. CV 00-04161 DDP (AJWx) C.D. Cal. 2001 The first-sale doctrine applies to computer software and cannot be waived or taken away through an end-user license agreement.

Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin 252 F. 3d 1165 11th Cir. 2001 Parody and fair use.

Universal v. Reimerdes 273 F.3d 429 2d Cir. 2001 Affirmed the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Cong. Int'l 241 F.3d 398, 416 5th Cir. 2001 A private organization cannot assert copyright protection for its model codes, after the models have been adopted by a legislative body and become the law.

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation 280 F.3d 934 3d Cir. 2002 Thumbnails and inline linking can be fair use.

Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. 539 U.S. 23 S. Ct. 2003 Trademark cannot preserve rights to a public domain work.

Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 U.S. 186 S. Ct. 2003 Congress may retroactively extend the duration of works still under copyright, as long as the extension is limited.

CoStar Group v. LoopNet 373 F.3d 544 4th Cir. 2004 Internet service provider was found liable for copyright infringement of photographs of commercial real estate by allowing subscribers to post the photographs on the provider's website.

Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. 03-16987 D.C. No. CV-01-04626SBA/JL OPINION 9th Cir. 2005 End User License Agreements on a physical box can be binding on consumers who signal their acceptance of the license agreement by opening the box.

Golan v. Gonzales (in progress) No. 01-B-1854, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6800 D.Co. 2005. 10th Cir. (2007)

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S., 125 S. Ct. 2764 S. Ct. 2005 Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement".

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc. 4 N.Y.3d 540 2d Cir. 2005 Rule of the shorter term not applied for sound recordings, pre-1972 when the works were a special case covered by state law and not federal jurisdiction

Perfect 10 v. Google Inc CASE NO. CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) C.D. Cal. 2006 Thumbnails in Web searches were fair use. Framed inline images of full size were not infringing copies. (9th circuit reversed the DC's holding of no Fair Use)

Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., et al. 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008) 10th Cir. 2008 3D models of physical objects, if faithfully and accurately representing the original, are not original enough to warrant copyright protection

~~~

DOWLING v. UNITED STATES | FindLaw

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/473/207.html

United States Supreme Court
DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, (1985)
No. 84-589
Argued: April 17, 1985 Decided: June 28, 1985