Source: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/playlists/9508
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:01:00+00:00

Document:
1.4 Show/Hide More MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.
This is the edited section 117 after MAI v. Peak. Does it solve all the problems of that case? What if software is licensed rather than owned?
1.8 Show/Hide More American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
This case explores the breadth of the performance right. Is it too broad?
1.9 Show/Hide More London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al.
2.2 Show/Hide More Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic Int'l, Inc.
2.5 Show/Hide More Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.
This case provides a good introduction to the policies and history of fair use, while also applying the doctrine to the most modern of contexts.
This case comes out differently on fair use than the book search case, despite the use of new. Why?
4.3 Show/Hide More Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.
This case serves two purposes. First, it introduces the type of liability that one might face for hyperlinking, even if the content is not hosted on one's own server. Second, in doing so, it introduces the concept of secondary liability, which pervades copyright liability on the internet.
Consider whether this court's view of direct liability by readers is consistent with Perfect 10's consideration of thumbnail images.
Description of how licensing for digital sound recording performance works.
5.3 Show/Hide More UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.Com, Inc.
5.4 Show/Hide More A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
5.8 Show/Hide More Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.
6.1 Show/Hide More Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communication Services, Inc.
This case applies Section 512 to a system similar to that at issue in Netcom. How does the DMCA change the analysis?
Recall that Napster's peer-to-peer file sharing system involved a database managed by Napster that each user could connect to in order to search music and other file names. This excerpt considers a DMCA defense for such a system.
7.1 Show/Hide More Viacom Intern., Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.