Advanced Intellectual Property Course:
COMPARATIVE COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE 21ST CENTURY
CRN 53467/ Fall 2005
ROOM 304
Overview, basic information, and syllabus
BLUE TEXT INDICATES FILE IS NOT ON ANGEL YET
(revised draft – as of November 30, 2005)
Professor Justin Hughes
212-790-0260
hughes@yu.edu
BASIC INFORMATION
Class hours:
Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2:30 – 3:50pm
Office hours:
Mondays, 10:00am – noon, Wednesdays, 2:30pm – 4:30pm – subject to change
I am very happy to meet by appointment. Or stop by the office when the door is open.
Course Materials:
Materials are all on-line through the Angel system.
A Distribution Pack for the first class will be printed and available for the first class. After that,
based on class interest, further course packs will be printed [for which there will be a charge] OR
students may rely on downloading from the Angel system.
It is recommended, but not required that students buy:
UNFAIR COMPETITION, TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHT AND PATENT: SELECTED STATUTES AND
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
PAUL GOLDSTEIN AND EDMUND KITCH, EDS.
(Foundation Press, 2005)
This book is not available in the book store. You can buy it online with these steps:
1.
Go to the following [very long] URL
http://www.westacademic.com/Students/ProductSearchResults.aspx?tab=1&keywords=1587788
381&searchtypeasstring=KEYWORD-SEARCH
2.
Click on “Stat Supp & Ct. Rules” tab at the bottom of the page. The book should now
appear.
3.
Students will also have to register at the site (www.westacademic.com) to
complete an online purchase
d-03Copyrightin21stCentury-syllabus05.doc/4/12/2020/page 1
Evaluation Format:
Grading in the course will be based on a final take home examination. Depending on class interest,
we may adopt a two-part take home format, one part assigned 2 weeks before the end of class and
a smaller part treated as a regular take-home. In addition, class participation will be used to adjust
grades upward or downward.
SYLLABUS
META-SYLLABUS
Prelude [how far can copyright go?]
1.
Translating 19th Century Copyright Law into 21st Century Problems –
a.
what counts as a copy? transient and temporary copies
b.
what counts as reproduction and distribution?
2.
The Initial Treaty Framework
3.
WIPO Copyright Treaties and Comparative National Implementation Thereof
a.
United States implementation – digital locks and circumvention devices
b.
European implementation – making available to the public, digital lock picks, and
circumvention devices
c.
Australian and Singaporean implementation
3.
The Problem of Internet Service Providers and other Third Party Liability
a.
United States
b.
European Union
c.
Japan and Germany – a comparison
d.
China
4.
The Problem of Personal Copying
a.
peer to peer systems
b.
fair use, fair dealing, and personal exceptions
c.
levy systems
5.
Linking and Framing
a.
linking
b.
framing
6.
Protecting Databases through Copyright Law and other Means
a.
The contraction of copyright protection
b.
European Union
c.
United States
d.
Australia and Canada
2
EXPANDED SYLLABUS
name in brackets is file name in Angel System
Materials on Angel and in Coursepack #1 (available at Faculty Services,
PRELUDE
Lancôme v. Kecofa, et al., Decision of the Court of Appeals, Den Bosch, The Netherlands,
8 June 2004 [Lancome.pdf]
1.
TRANSLATING 19TH CENTURY COPYRIGHT LAW INTO 21ST CENTURY PROBLEMS –
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, 392 U.S. 390 (1968) [Fornightly2.doc]
MAI Systems v. Peak Computer 991 F.2d 511, 1993 U.S. LEXIS 7522 (9th Cir., 1993)
[MAIvPeakreformat.doc]
Marobie-FL, Inc. v. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, 983 F. Supp.
1167 (E.D. Ill. 1997) [Marobie2.doc]
Material on Angel
Not required reading, but of interest:
Sony Computer Entertainment v. Ball, et. al., [2004] EWHC 1738 (Ch), English High
Court of Justice, Chancery Division, 19 July 2004 [sony-v-ball.doc]
also available at http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2680/sony-v-ball.htm
2.
THE INITIAL TREATY FRAMEWORK
Excerpts from the TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (TRIPS)
AGREEMENT, Annex 1C to the Marrakesg Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization, April 15, 1994 [TRIPSexcerpt.doc], also available at
http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.wpf
BERNE CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS,
Articles 1-21, last revised at Paris on July 24, 1971, and amended on September 28, 1979,
[BERNE.pdf] also available at
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/pdf/trtdocs_wo001.pdf
[Skim these provisions – perhaps reviewing the “titles” of each article - to see how the
substantive components of the Berne Convention were “integrated” into the WTO system
by TRIPS Article 9.]
3.
THE WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATIES AND COMPARATIVE NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO]
3
(1996) [WCTtest.pdf] available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/wct/
DRAFT LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS FOR LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC, sometime 2004 [preparatory text based on consultations with WIPO officials;
NOT for distribution outside our class] [LaoCopyight.pdf]
[Read Articles 3-9 (pp. 8-13), Articles 21-22 (pp. 20-22), and Art. 29 (pp. 28-28)]
a.
United States implementation – digital locks and circumvention devices
Selected provisions of U.S. DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (1998), 17 U.S.C.
Read § 1201 (a) through (j) and § 1202 [17USC 1201-1205.pdf]
U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998: U.S.
COPYRIGHT OFFICE SUMMARY, December 1998. [read intro and discussions of Titles I and
III at this time; you may want to refer to discussion of Title II later in the course] available
at http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf [CO-on-DMCA.pdf]
Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
11696 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) [Universal2.doc]
Lexmark International v. Static Control Components, 387 F.3d 522; 2004 U.S. App.
LEXIS 22250 (Sixth Cir. 2004) [Lexmark2.doc]
b.
European implementation – making available to the public, digital lock picks,
and circumvention devices
Sunde v. Johansen, Case No. 02-507 M/94, Oslo Court of First Instance, 7 January 2003
[translation courtesy of Professor Jon BING, University of Oslo, Norway]
[DVD-Jon-engelsk-RRW.1.doc]
EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE, Directive 2001/29/EC of the European
Parliament and the of the Council, 22 May 2001 [2001COPYRIGHTdIRECTIVE.PDF]
[Skim “whereas” provisions and read directive articles beginning on page 15; skip Article
5, which we study later].
Joint Press Report, Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels,
and Bundesverband der Phonographischen Wirtschaft, 18 January 2005 (showing a private
sector effort to provide access and, therefore, avoid interference with any TPM or DRM)
[vereinbarung_engl_jan2005.doc]
c.
Australian and Singaporean implementation
Excerpts from UNITED STATES – SINGAPORE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT, signed by
President George W. Bush and Singapore Prime Minister Chok Tong Goh on May 6, 2003
, provisions on Intellectual Property Rights also available at
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Singapore_FTA/Final_Texts/Section_I
4
ndex.html [Review Articles 16.4 and 16.5 (p. 188, et seq.)]
Excerpts from SINGAPOREAN COPYRIGHT ACT in response to U.S. – Singapore “FTA”
(Part XIIIA, Circumvention of Technological Measures . Read with a mind to comparing
to the parallel provisions of the DMCA and EU Copyright Directive) [2005CopyrightAct –
PART IIIX.doc], available at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/.
Selected provisions of Australia’s COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT (DIGITAL AGENDA) ACT
2000, No. 110, 2000, Assented to 4 September 2000
Australian Copyright Council, Digital Agenda amendments: an overview, Information
Sheet G65, July 2003, available at http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G065.pdf
Sony Computer Entertainment v. Eddy Stevens, Federal Court of Australia, [2003]
FCAFC 157, 30 July 2003 [excerpts – summary and opinions of Judge French, Lindgren,
and Finkelstein] [EddyStevens2.doc]
3.
THE PROBLEM OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS AND OTHER THIRD PARTY LIABILITY
a.
United States
Selected provisions of U.S. DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (1998), 17 U.S.C. §
512. [Sec.512.pdf]
b.
European Union
EU DIRECTIVE ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, Directive 2000/31/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2000 [review articles 12 - 15 reproduced here and any
“whereas” clauses (which serve as a kind of legislative history) that you think are relevant]
[EU E-Commerce Directive]
THE MULTATULI PROJECT, ISP NOTICE & TAKE DOWN, Lecture by Sjoera Nas, Bits of
Freedom, SANE, 1 October 2004
c.
Japan and Germany – a comparison
Sections 8-11, GERMAN TELE-SERVICE ACT (Teledienstgesetz), as amended December
14, 2001 [German Tele-Service Act]
BGH, Urteil vom 04.03.2004 - III ZR 96/03 ("Rolex"), Judgment of the
Bundesgerichtschof (BGH) (Federal High Court), March 11, 2004 (summaries from Dr.
Boris Borsch [Rolex case summary – Germany] and Shinji Niioka, CSL LLM)
[NiiokaGERMANLAW.doc]
INTERIM REPORT BY COPYRIGHT COUNCIL OF JAPAN (FIRST SUBGROUP) REGARDING
5
ISP LIABILITY, December 2000
(detailing two cases of defamation and ISP liability in Japanese courts, with additional
story from Yomiuri Shimbun) [JapanCopyrightCouncil.doc or Interim Report of the
Copyright Council of Japan]
JAPAN PROVIDER LIABILITY LIMITATION ACT, passed November 30, 2001 and effective
May 27, 2002 [the version we have here is a translation of the “draft” of the PLLA but
seems to reflect the final provisions] [Japan Provider Liability Limitation Act - DRAFT]
also available at
http://www.media.is.tohoku.ac.jp/~jsimmons/MedLit/ProviderResponsibilityLawTranslat
ion.html
d.
China
INTERPRETATION BY THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT (CHINA) OF SEVERAL ISSUES
RELATING TO ADJUDICATION OF AND APPLICATION OF LAW TO CASES OF COPYRIGHT
DISPUTES ON COMPUTER NETWORK,
Adopted at the 1144th meeting of the Adjudication Commission of the Supreme People’s
Court, December 21, 2000; Amended at the 1302nd Meeting of the Adjudication
Commission of the Supreme People's Court on 23 December 2003 and Entering into Force
on 7 January 2004. [CHINA-2004Intrepretation.doc] also available at
www.cpahkltd.com/Archives
e.
Singapore
Excerpts from SINGAPORE COPYRIGHT ACT [Chapter 63 of Singapore Laws], Part IXA,
Works, and Other Subject Matter, in Electronic Form, amended in 2004 and effective Jan.
1, 2005. [d-2005SingaporeISPprovisions.doc] available at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/
4.
THE PROBLEM OF PERSONAL COPYING
a.
peer to peer systems
Justin Hughes, On Suing One’s Own Customers and the Dilemma of Infringement-Based
Business Models, 23 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J. 725 (2005
contributory liability
[If you studied the Universal Studios v. Sony (“Betamax”) decision in your basic Copyright
course, it would be useful for you to review the case before reading Napster.]
A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5446, 2001 Cal.
Daily Op. Service 1255, 2001 D.A.R. 1611, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28200, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d
(BNA) 1729 (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) [Napsterappellate2.doc]
In re. Aimster Litigation, 334 F.3d 643; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 13229. Civil Case No.
6
02-4125, (Posner, 7th Circuit, June 30, 2003) [AimsterPosner2.doc] also at
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=02-4125.PDF
MGM et al. v. Grokster, et al., 380 F.3d 1154; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 17471 (9th Cir.
2004) [GroksterEditedAppellate.doc]
MGM v. Grokster, United States Supreme Court, 545 U.S. ___ (2005) (June 27, 2005)
[GROKSTER-SCopinion.pdf]
The Rogue File Case, Heisei 14 (Wa) 4249, Tokyo District Court Decision of January 29,
2003 [translation by Professor Kazuo MAKINO, Omiya Law School]
P2P Site Operators “Did Not Violate Copyright” Appellate Court, English edition of
Chosun, Seoul, Korea, Jan 12, 2005 [From English Chosun.doc] also at
http://english.chosun.com/cgi-bin/printNews?id=200501120032. see also Song Jung-a ,
Korean Court Acquits music swap service, FINANCIAL TIMES, Jan 13, 2005,
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9b04f9f0-6508-11d9-9f8b-00000e2511c8.html
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v. Sharman License Holdings Ltd, [2005] FCA 1242,
Federal Court of Australia, 5 September 2005
Completely optional
Completely optional
MGM v. Grokster, BREYER concurrence, United States Supreme Court, 545 U.S. ___ (2005)
(June 27, 2005) [GROKSTER-Breyer-Concurrence.pdf]
MGM v. Grokster, United States Supreme Court, 545 U.S. ___ (2005) (June 27, 2005)
[GROKSTER- Ginsburg-Concurrence.pdf]
b.
suits against end-users – strategy and privacy
Columbia Insurance Company v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573; 1999 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 12652 (N.D. Cal. 1999) [seescandy.doc]
RIAA v. Verizon, 351 F.3d 1229, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25735 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
[RIAAvVERIZON.doc]
EMI Records, et. al v. EIRCOM, Ltd., The High Court Dubline, Case No. 2014P/2005,
Ex-Tempore Judgment Given by Mr. Justice Kelly, 8 July 2005 [Irish
Judgment-summer2005 – edited.doc]
7
BMG Canada, et. al v. John Doe, Canada Federal Court (Ottawa), 2004 FC 488, Reasons
for Order and Order, March 31, 2004 [BMG CANADA v. DOES.pdf] also at
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/criadoe33104opn.pdf
c.
levy systems – more or less needed? jurisdiction issues.
Chart showing comparative levies for EU countries, THE INDUSTRY STANDARD February
5, 2001, at 70 [Copyright Levies Europe.pdf]
Summary and chapters 3, 4 , and 5from, INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION LAW (IVIR),
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM, The Future of Levies in a Digital Environment (March
2003) [you may just skim many of the details of this piece – although the entire report is
posted on ANGEL, please review only the summary and chapters 3, 4, and 5]
Canadian Association of Internet Providers, et. al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and
Music Publishers of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada, 2004 SCC 45, June 30, 2004
[2004_SCC_45.doc]
Michael Geist, The Failure of Canada’s Private Copying System, August 2005, essay
appeared in the Toronto Star on August 8, 2005, as “Copying Levy Has Not Worked Well
for Anyone” and the Ottawa Citizen on August 11, 2005, as “Lose the Levy”. [GEIST-The
Failure of Canada.doc] This version is from
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=924
6.
LINKING AND FRAMING
Section from Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 11696 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) [universal3.doc]
The Shetland Times v. Wills, Court of Session, Edinburgh, Scotland. Text of Interim
Interdict, October 24, 1996 [along with dismissal upon settlement], also available at
http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-87.htm
Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist LEXIS 2265, 45
U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2005 (C.D. Cal. 1998) [Futuredontics.doc]
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 280 F.3d 934, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 1786 (9th Cir.
2002) [actually we will be looking at amended Ninth Circuit opinion], also at
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_study.html [Kelly2.doc]
Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19103 (D.
Utah, 1999) [INTELLECTUAL RESERVE.doc]
Background – further reading
8
The Link Controversy Page, also available at http://www.jura.uni-tuebingen.de/~s-bes1/lcp.html
6.
PROTECTING DATABASES THROUGH COPYRIGHT LAW AND OTHER MEANS
a.
The contraction of copyright protection
Romme v. Van Dale Lexicografie¸Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Judgment of
January 4, 1991 [reprinted in DOMMERING AND HUGENHOLTZ, EDS, PROTECTING WORKS
OF FACT]
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340; 111 S. Ct.
1282; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 1856; 113 L.Ed. 2d 358; 59 U.S.L.W. 4251; 18 U.S.P.Q.2D
(BNA) 1275 [Feist2.wpd]
Pages 27-51 of Justin Hughes, Political Economies of Harmonization: Database
Protection and Information Patents, paper presented “Frontiers of Ownership in the
Digital Economy” Conference, Institut Français des Relations Internationales, Paris, June
2002, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=318486
b.
European Union
EUROPEAN UNION DIRECTIVE ON THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF DATABASES, 96/9/EC,
March 11, 1996, [European Union 1996 Database Directive] also available at
cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/ alternatives/directive.html.
Editorial Aranzadi v. Dealing World Espana, S.A., Judgment of July 2, 1999, Court of
First Instance, Alicante, Spain [EditorialAranzadi.wpd]
The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v. William Hill Organization Ltd,
European Court of Justice Case C-203/02, JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand
Chamber), 9 November 2004 [British Horseracing Board et al. v. William Hill
, ECJ
(2004)]
d.
Australia and Canada
CCH Canadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada, Canada Federal Court of Appeals,
[2002] F.C.A. 187, (Fed. Ct.) (Can.) [section on originality standard], also available at
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2002/2002fca187.html
Desktop Marketing Systems v. Telstra Corporation, Federal Court of Australia - Full
Court, [2002] F.C.A.F.C. 112, May 15, 2002, [TelstraCase3 – heavyedit.doc] also available
at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2002/112.html
NTT Town Page Database Case, Tokyo District Court Decision, March 17, 2000
9
[translation by Professor Kazuo MAKINO, Omiya Law School]
Automobile Database Case, Tokyo District Court Decision, May 25, 2001 [translation by
Professor Kazuo MAKINO, Omiya Law School]
7.
THE INTERFACE BETWEEN COPYRIGHT LAW AND CONTRACT LAW
ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 14951; 39 U.S.P.Q.2D
(BNA) 1161; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27,529; 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1109
Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1316 (Fed. CIr. 2003), 2003 U.S. App.
LEXIS 1422; 65 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1746
Deanna L. Kwong, Note, The Copyright-Contract Intersection: SoftMan Products Co. v.
Adobe Systems, Inc. & Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc., 18 Berkeley Law and
Technology J. 349 (2003)
End of Syllabus – version #5
10
Material not assigned, spring 2005
Tele-Direct Publications Inc. v. American Business Information, Inc., Canada Federal Court of
Appeals, [1997] 154 D.L.R.4th 328, leave to appeal refused, [1998] 228 N.R. 200 (Fed. Ct.) (Can.)
11