Lectures on Internet Law
(CSM04)
Mrs. Tuğba Taşkaya Temizel
Prof. Khurshid Ahmad
Department of Computing
School of Electronics & Physical Sciences
November 2005
Course Outline- Internet Law











2 
Cyberspace, cyberlaw and the clash of laws
The key players
Internet and Intellectual Property
Internet –Telecomms and Broadcast Regulation
Defamation
Trademarks
Domain Name Registration
Copyrights
Online Service Agreements
Click-Wrap Licences
Computer Fraud and Abuse
Patent Law
Key References
Books
Bainbridge, David I. (2000). Introduction to
Computer Law (4th Edition). Harlow (England):
Longman.
 Edwards, Lillian., & Wealde, Charlotte. (2000). Law
and the Internet: A Framework for Electronic
Commerce. Oxford & Portland: Hart Publishing.
 Lloyd, Ian J. (1977). Information Technology Law.
London:Butterworth.
 Smedinghoff, Thomas, J. (1996) (Editor). Online
Law: The Software Publishers Association’s Legal
Guide to Doing Business on the Internet. Reading
(Mass): Addison-Wesley Developers Press.

3
Key References
Links

Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/

An Introduction to Intellectual Property
http://www.law.uconn.edu/homes/swilf/ip/index.htm

Business, Internet, e-Commerce & Domain Name Law
http://www.keytlaw.com/

Intellectual Property in Cyberspace
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/library/library.html .

Copyright and Fair Use
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html

FindLaw Professionals: Summaries of Law
http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/
This presentation was prepared using above links and resources.
4
Glossary of Legal Terms










Allege : To state without proof or before proving
Bona Fide : characterized by good faith and lack of fraud or deceit
Chattel : An article of movable personal property
Defendant : The party against which an action is brought.
Dismiss: To put (a claim or action) out of court without further hearing
Enact : To make into law
Infringe :To exceed the limits of; violate
Injunction: A court order prohibiting a party from a specific course of
action
Jurisdiction :The right and power to interpret and apply the law
Lawsuit : An action brought in a court for the purpose of seeking relief
from or remedy for an alleged wrong
For more legal definitions, please refer to
http://www.lawyers.com/legal_topics/glossary/index.php
5
http://www.dictionary.com
Glossary of Legal Terms







Legislation : A proposed or enacted law or group of laws.
Merits : A party's strict legal rights, excluding jurisdictional, personal, or
technical aspects
Plaintiff : A person who brings an action in a court of law
Squatter : a person who occupies real property without a claim of right
or title
Statute : An established law or rule, as of a corporation
Sue : To institute legal proceedings; bring suit
Trespass : To commit an unlawful injury to the person, property, or rights
of another, with actual or implied force or violence, especially to enter
onto another's land wrongfully
For more legal definitions, please refer to
http://www.lawyers.com/legal_topics/glossary/index.php
6
http://www.dictionary.com
Copyrights


7
A copyright is a form of protection provided by
the laws of the United States and most other
countries to those who create what the law
refers to as “original works of authorship”. It is, in
essence, a grant of certain exclusive rights to
authors in order to allow them commercially to
exploit their works.
Whether in digital form or in print, most
information is automatically protected by
copyright from the moment it is created.
Copyrights
The Berne Convention

The Berne Convention,



8
is the principle copyright treaty for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works, which was signed by 114
countries in July 1995.
was first adopted at Berne in 1886.
extends the protection of the countries’ copyright law
to foreigners whose works are infringed within the
borders of their country.
This protection must last for at least the life of the
author plus 50 years, and must be automatic without
the need for the author to take any legal steps to
preserve the copyright.
Copyrights
Copyrightable Works









9

Literary Works : text-based works such as books, plays
Databases : collections of data
Characters : fictional characters such as Superman
Musical Works : words, music, musical instrument digital interface
(MIDI)
Sound Recordings : copyrightable regardless of the nature of the
sounds recorded.
Photographs and Still Images : advertisements, cartoons, charts,
comic strips … (GIF images of any these items are also
copyrightable)
Motion Pictures and Other Audiovisual Works : film, videogame…
Software
Compilations and Derivative Works : catalogs, directories,
anthologies …
Multimedia Works
Copyrights
Uncopyrightable Works






10
Pure data such as names, addresses
Facts
Ideas
Works prepared by federal government officers
and employees
Federal statutes (the Copyright Act, for example)
and regulations
Words, phrases, and titles
Copyrights
Case Study

Discuss whether Tesco can register the
“Every little helps” phrase .
See UK Copyright Service http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/assessment
11
Copyrights
Case Study

Discuss whether Tesco can register the
“Every little helps” phrase .
Names, titles and phrases do not qualify for copyright protection.
You may however still be able to register a logo which combines the words with
design elements, as this would be eligible for copyright protection as a design work,
(the actual words themselves are not covered).
See UK Copyright Service http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/assessment
12
Copyrights
Copyright Infringement



13
Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights
of a copyright owner is an infringer.
Copyright infringement is determined without
regard to the intent or the state of mind of the
infringer. Even those who infringe a copyright
innocently are liable to the copyright owner. The
making of even a single unauthorised copy may
constitute an infringement.
A copyright owner can recover actual or, in
some cases, statutory damages from an
infringer.
Copyrights
Case Study

Discuss whether the following cases will
infringe the copyrights:


14
To make an archival copy of your software for
backup purposes
To rent your legal copy of a film to people
Copyrights
Case Study

Discuss whether the following cases will
infringe the copyrights:


To make an archival copy of your software for
backup purposes : no infringement
To rent your legal copy of a film to people: if
there is no notice regarding prohibiting
renting, then it is legal. [In 1979 Universal City
Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc.
et al. (often called "The Betamax Case") ]
15
Copyrights
Implied Licences

An implied license is one which though not expressly
given, may be presumed from the acts of the party
having a right to give it.


16
E-mail messages: By sending the message, the sender arguably
consents to the necessary copying.
When a user views a Web page, the content of the Web page is
copied onto the RAM of the user’s computer. Since this conduct
constitutes making a ‘copy’, and thus constitutes at least a
technical copyright violation, it must be presumed that the author
who posted material on the Web site granted an implied license
to make such copies.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/License
Copyrights
Public Domain

Copyrightable information is in the public
domain generally only if,

The original copyright has expired (Copyright
protection lasts for the life of the author plus 50 years)


17
The copyright has been abandoned by the
copyright holder, or
The work was created by the federal
government
Copyrights
First-Sale Doctrine

18
The Copyright Act gives the copyright owner the
exclusive right to distribute the copyrighted work.
After the copyright owner has sold a particular
copy of the work (i.e. made the ‘first sale’ of that
copy), it has no right to control further disposition
of that copy by the purchaser. This principle is
known as the first-sale doctrine.
Case Study

Decide whether the following cases may
infringe the copyrights:



19
To sell your ticket bought for a concert to
anyone else.
To sell the software you bought.
To sell your archival copy of the software to
be used when the original package fails or is
destroyed.
Copyrights
Case Study

Tickets: Example Live 8 concert

20
The reselling of charity concert tickets is
not illegal under UK law, BUT
Copyrights
Fair Use

The "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including use for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. Copyright owners are, by law, deemed to
consent to fair use of their works by others. The
Copyright Act does not define fair use. Instead, whether
a use is fair use is determined by balancing these
factors:




21
The purpose and character of the use.
The nature of the copyrighted work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole.
The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the
copyrighted work.
http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright_6.html
Copyrights
Fair Use
The purpose and character of the use:
Courts consider two factors:
a)
Whether the copying is for a noncommercial use, as opposed
to a commercial purpose
b)
Whether the copying involves a transformative use of the
original
The transformative use is one in which the copied material is
incorporated into another work that has a different purpose or
different character from that of the original, such as work that
adds new expression, meaning, or message to the material
copied from the original work. Copying in an attempt to
duplicate the original and multiply the number of copies is not
transformative use
22
Copyrights
Fair Use

Purpose and character of use:
Infinity Broadcasting Corp. v. Kirkwood (1998): where the courts
concluded that retransmission of radio broadcast over telephone lines
was not deemed transformative;
 Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God (2000): where
the courts noted that copying a religious book to create a new book for
use by a different church was not transformative;
 Nunez V. Caribbean International News Corp. (2000): Copying a
photograph that was intended for use in a modelling portfolio and using it
instead in a news article was deemed transformative by the courts. The
use of a photograph in the newspaper transformed it into news, thereby
creating a new meaning or purpose for the work.

23
Copyrights
Transforming news articles into art
Fair Use
Sarah Lucas (Shine On 1991)
– Tate Modern Museum
“Love Letters
Building” in Berlin
BBC news article
@cooey
24
Copyrights
Fair Use

Purpose and character of use:
Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. v. Bleem (2000):
Bleem’s use of ‘screen shots’ from Sony in Bleem’s
advertisement was fair use as it increased purchasing public’s
knowledge whilst Sony incurred very little loss of integrity.

25
Copyrights
Fair Use

Purpose and character of use:
Los
Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int'l Ltd.. 149 F.3d
987 (9th Cir. 1998): rejecting the fair use defence where
television news agencies copied copyrighted news footage and
retransmitted it to news organizations
Basic
Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp., 758 F. Supp. 1522,
1530-31 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) see generally Leval, supra, at 1111:
repetition of copyrighted material that "merely repackages or
republishes the original" is unlikely to be deemed a fair use.
26
Copyrights
Fair Use
The nature of the copyrighted work:
Courts consider two factors:
a) Whether the copyrighted work is
published or unpublished
b) Whether the copyrighted work is
factual or creative.
27
Copyrights
Fair Use
The amount and substantiality of the portion used:
The greater the portion of a work that is copied, the less likely it is
that the copying will be considered fair use.
In 1984, the Supreme Court recognised that videotaping of
television programs for home use was not transformative and took
the entirety of the copyrighted works, and acknowledged that these
facts argued against a finding of fair use. However, the Court
justified a finding of fair use by the fact that the copying,
1) was private
2) was noncommercial
3) was done to permit the consumer one viewing at a
convenient hour of copyrighted material that was offered to him free
of charge
4) caused no appreciable loss of revenue to the copyright
owner
28
Copyrights
Fair Use
The effect of the use on the potential
market for the copyrighted work:
If copying a portion of another’s copyrighted
work has no demonstrable effect upon the
potential market for, or the value of, the
copyrighted work, it may be considered a fair
use.
29
Copyrights
Case Study

Decide in
which cases
copyright
infringement
occurs. Give
your reasons.
You post a message to a discussion site, and another person
quotes your message.
A writer wrote a travel book after s/he spends many years in
abroad. Later, someone uses some of the facts written in the
book elsewhere.
A website publishes a model’s pictures, which were taken for a
magazine portfolio, without her permission.
Someone copied the telephone directory and rearranged the
information into phone number order.
A browser displays a site to you, while determining whether
your computer’s memory contains a copy (or cache) of the
requested site. If it does, then the Web browser displays that
copy within seconds. If the computer’s memory doesn’t have a
copy of this Web site, then it retrieves a copy, simultaneously
storing that copy of the site into the computer’s RAM.
30
Copyrights
Type of Permissions


Assignment: You give up the ownership of
copyright. E.g. the sale of a house
Licence: You temporarily transfer your rights but
retain the ownership of copyright. E.g. leasing a
house


31
Exclusive licence: Only the licencee has the right to
use the work in the ways specified in the licence.
Everybody else, including the copyright owner is
prevented using the work in those ways.
Non-exclusive licence: The copyright owner retains
the right to use the work and may continue to grant
similar licences to others who wish to use the work in
the same way.
Copyrights
Case Study
CopyMonsieur has recently asked Skippy the eco-warrior to produce a
compilation of eco-poems, plays and paintings with environmental
themes for the last century (1900-99). Skippy selects 3 poems of his mate
Jim, who is an eco-poet of considerable standing. Skippy has also
selected a play by Joe, who died 20 years ago, about environmental
destruction of rain forests in the 1960s. Skippy’s friend, Jenny, is happy
for Skippy to use a TV documentary she produced, about the effect of
motorway construction produced by Cynical TV, for his compilation.
Jenny has also found the earliest novel on an ecological theme by her
great grandfather, Jerry, who died about 90 years ago and Skippy will
digitise the novel for his compilation as well.
Describe what kinds of licences and permission CopyMonsieur
will need from Skippy, Jim, Joe, Jenny and Jerry to comply with
the UK Copyright Laws.
32
Copyrights
Case Study
Describe the kinds of licences and permission CopyMonsieur will
need from Skippy, Jim, Joe, Jenny and Jerry to comply with the
UK Copyright Laws.
A
licence from Jim and from Joe’s estate (as he is now deceased)
allowing for the copying, performance and issue to the public of their
poems;
An assignment (or exclusive licence) from Jenny in respect of the
compilation copyright and the material she has written;
A licence from Cynical TV in respect of the broadcast; and
An exclusive licence from Jim in respect of his live performance (this
is protected as a right in a performance, a right analogous to copyright).
33
Online Service Agreements
 An
online contract is a contract
created wholly or in part through
communications over computer
networks.
 Assent by either words or
conduct is mandatory.
34
Online Service Agreements
Shrink Wrap Licences:


35
Shrinkwrap used in the
licensing of tangible forms of
software sold in packages.
Frequently, such packaging
states that software use is
subject to the terms of an
enclosed license agreement
that permits buyers objecting
to such terms to return the
software for a refund. Many
courts have found that using
and failing to return such
software are sufficient acts of
assent to bind the user to the
license terms.
Online Service Agreements
Click Wrap Licences:

36
In the case of a shrinkwrap
licence the user has to break a
seal that is on the clear packaging
of a software product he or she
has bought in order to access the
contents of the package. Once
the seal is broken the user is
expected to use the enclosed
computer program after
encountering notice of the
existence of governing license
terms. The 2nd Circuit Court
noted that the breaking of the seal
is regarded by ‘some courts to
constitute assent to those terms in
the context of tangible software’
and the Court cited the 7th Circuit
Court earlier.
Online Service Agreements
Click Wrap Licences:
37

The term clickwrap, a kind of
online software licence
agreement, has evolved from the
term shrinkwrap used in the
licensing of tangible forms of
software sold in packages.

Clickwrap is essentially an icon
on a web page which is used to
present “ the user with a message
on his or her computer screen,
requiring that the user manifest
his or her assent to the terms of
the license agreement by clicking
on an icon. The product cannot be
obtained or used unless and until
the icon is clicked."
Online Service Agreements
Click Wrap Licences:

38
Therefore by analogy, clicking
on a web-page's clickwrap
button after receiving notice of
the existence of license terms
has been held by some courts
to manifest an Internet user's
assent to terms governing the
use of downloadable intangible
software, see, e.g., Hotmail
Corp. v. Van$ Money Pie Inc.,
47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1020, 1025
(N.D. Cal. 1998).
Click Wrap Licences:
Specht and others v Netscape & AOL
SmartDownload is a program
that makes it easier for its users
to download files from the
Internet
The plaintiffs clicked the
“Download” box to obtain the
software and proceeded to
download the software on to the
hard drives of their computers.
No reference to license terms
appeared at the "Download" box.
39
Click Wrap Licences:
Specht and others v Netscape & AOL
The sole reference on this
page to the License
Agreement appears in text
that is visible only if a visitor
scrolls down through the
page to the next screen.
The plaintiffs alleged that
the defendant invaded the
plaintiffs’ privacy by secretly
disseminating personal
information when the
plaintiff used the software
supplied by the defendant
SmartDownload
40
Click Wrap Licences:
Specht and others v Netscape & AOL

The Second Circuit held that under these circumstances, plaintiffs
were not bound by the terms of the license agreement because they
did not receive sufficient notice that their act of clicking on the
"download" button, or using the software, would constitute an assent
to be bound by the terms of the license agreement. Said the court:
A consumer's clicking on a download button does not communicate
assent to contractual terms if the offer did not make clear to the
consumer that clicking on the download button would signify assent
to those terms … (citations omitted). California's common law is
clear that "an offeree, regardless of apparent manifestation of his
consent, is not bound by inconspicuous contractual provisions of
which he is unaware, contained in a document whose contractual
nature is not obvious." (citations omitted).
41
Online Service Agreements
Case Study

42
A computer can generate an offer. For
example, an inventory system can
calculate when supplies are low, and
automatically generate an electronic
purchase order to the vendor. Would such
an order be a binding offer?
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (§
1030)
(Based on the 1996 Act. The new Act was released on 6th August
2004)
(a) Whoever-…
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds
authorized access, and thereby obtains—
…
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct
involved an interstate or foreign communication;
…
(5)(C)intentionally accesses a protected computer without
authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html
43
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (§
1030)
(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section
is–
…
(2) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2),
(a)(3), (a)(5)(C), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a
conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to
commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(2) (B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than
5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), if-(i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial
advantage or private financial gain;
(ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or
tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States
or of any State; or
44
(iii) the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000;
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (§
1030)
(e) As used in this section-(8) the term "damage" means any impairment to the integrity
or availability of data, a program, a system, or information, that-(A) causes loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value
during any 1-year period to one or more individuals;
(B) modifies or impairs, or potentially modifies or
impairs, the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of one
or more individuals;
(C) causes physical injury to any person; or
(D) threatens public health or safety; …
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html
45
Copyrights & Clip Wrap Licences
Case Study – Plaintiffs:Ticketmaster Corp. Defendant: Tickets.com Inc.
Ticketmaster (the Plaintiff) have filed a complaint against
Tickets.com (the Defendant) in the U.S. District Court
C.D. California 2000.
The Plaintiffs made the First Amended Complaint
(FAC) against the Defendant, MP3.com, including the
breach of contract, misappropriation, trespass,
copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, federal
unfair competition and reverse passing off, false
advertising, state unfair business practices, and
interference with business advantage.
Court cases:
[2000]
http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/su03/darden_thorpe/54%20U.S.P.Q.2d%201344.h
tml
[2003]
46 http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/su03/darden_thorpe/2003%20WL%2021406289.h
Copyrights & Clip Wrap Licences
Case Study – Plaintiffs:Ticketmaster Corp. Defendant: Tickets.com Inc.

FACTS:

Ticketmaster operates to allow
customers to purchase tickets
to various events (concerts,
ball games, etc.) through an
internet connection with its
customers.

However, the customer need
not view the terms and
conditions to proceed straight
to the event page which
interests him.
47
Copyrights & Clip Wrap Licences
Case Study – Plaintiffs:Ticketmaster Corp. Defendant: Tickets.com Inc.

FACTS:

Tickets also operates a web site
(Tickets.Com) which performs a
somewhat different ticketing service.
While Tickets does sell some tickets to
certain events on its own, it also
provides information as to where and
how tickets which it does not sell may
be purchased.
Where the exclusive ticket broker is
Ticketmaster, and the customer clicks
on "Buy this ticket from another on-line
ticketing company", the customer is
instantly transferred to the interior web
page of Ticketmaster (bypassing the
home page) for the the particular event
in question, where the customer may
buy the tickets (from Ticketmaster, not
Tickets) on-line.

48
Copyrights & Clip Wrap Licences
Case Study – Plaintiffs:Ticketmaster Corp. Defendant: Tickets.com Inc.

FACTS:

Tickets employed an electronic program
called a "spider" or "crawler" to review
the internal web pages (available to the
public) of Ticketmaster. The "spider"
"crawled" through the internal web
pages to Ticketmaster and electronically
extracted the electronic information from
which the web page is shown on the
user's computer. The spider temporarily
loaded this electronic information into
the Random Access Memory ("RAM") of
Ticket's computers.
49
Copyrights & Clip Wrap Licences
Case Study – Plaintiffs:Ticketmaster Corp. Defendant: Tickets.com Inc.
Carnival Cruise Lines '91 499 U.S. 585, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 :
Facts: The Shutes went on a cruise. On the ticket, there was a
forum selection clause that said any litigation related to the cruise
must be tried in Florida. Mrs. Shute slipped on the ship and hurt
herself. The Shutes sued in Washington and Carnival moved for
summary judgment due to the forum selection clause. At trial, the
Shutes conceded that they had notice of the forum selection clause.
Rule: Courts have the responsibility to determine whether forum
selection clauses in form passage contracts are fair.
Analysis: The Court says that the ticket contract was a routine
commercial passage contract. It was not negotiated, and the
parties did not have equal bargaining power.
[http://lawschool.mikeshecket.com/civpro/carnivalcruiselinesincvshu
te.html]
50
Copyrights & Clip Wrap Licences
Case Study – Plaintiffs:Ticketmaster Corp. Defendant: Tickets.com Inc.

51
Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd. (United States District Court, California, 2000 CIV-F00-5671 REC SMS)
Facts: Pollstar alleges that it created and developed up-to-the-day time sensitive
concert information that was published daily on its web site-- www.pollstar.com--.By
accessing the pollstar.com web site, an Internet user can download and use the
timely and up-to-date concert information pursuant to conditions of a license
agreement. Pollstar alleges that Gigmania downloaded pollstar.com from the Internet
and placed information that is copied from the pollstar.com web site on its web site at
www.gigmania.com.
The license agreement states in pertinent part: License Agreement: Any person using
information from this web site hereby agrees to the following terms:
1. All documents and information may only be used for informational purposes.
2. All documents and information may only be used for non-commercial purposes.
3. Any copy of these documents or information or portions thereof must include the
copyright notice and this License Agreement.
Any duplication, transmission by any method, or storage in an information retrieval
system of any part of this publication for purposes other than those stated above is
strictly prohibited without the specific written permission of the publisher. In the
present case, Pollstar alleges that users of the concert information are bound by the
license agreement. This license agreement is not set forth on the homepage but is on
a different web page that is linked to the homepage. However, the visitor is alerted to
the fact that "use is subject to license agreement" because of the notice in small gray
print on gray background.
Copyrights & Clip Wrap Licences
Case Study – Plaintiffs:Ticketmaster Corp. Defendant: Tickets.com Inc.

52
Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd. (United States District Court,
California, 2000 CIV-F-00-5671 REC SMS)
Rule and Analysis: Since the text is not underlined, a common
Internet practice to show an active link, many users presumably are
not aware that the license agreement is linked to the homepage. In
addition, the homepage also has small blue text which when clicked
on, does not link to another page. This may confuse visitors who
may then think that all colored small text, regardless of color, do not
link the homepage to a different web page.
While the court agrees with Gigmania that the user is not
immediately confronted with the notice of the license agreement,
this does not dispose of Pollstar's breach of contract claim. The
court hesitates to declare the invalidity and unenforceability of the
browse wrap license agreement at this time. Taking into
consideration the examples provided by the Seventh Circuit-showing that people sometimes enter into a contract by using a
service without first seeing the terms--the browser wrap license
agreement may be arguably valid and enforceable.
http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/su03/darden_thorpe/170%20F.Supp.2d%20974.html
Copyrights & Clip Wrap Licences
Case Study – Plaintiffs:Ticketmaster Corp. Defendant: Tickets.com Inc.

Discuss whether the Plaintiff is right in the following claims:

Breach of contract





Copyrights





53
Link your discussion with the following cases:
Carnival Cruise Lines '91 499 U.S. 585, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 :
Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd. (United States District Court, California, 2000 CIVF-00-5671 REC SMS)
Specht and others v Netscape & AOL (United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, 2002)
The momentary resting in the Tickets computers of all of the electronic
signals
Copyrightable material
Hyperlinking
Passing off, reverse passing off
Trespass to chattels