Source: https://intellectualip.com/category/copyright/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:53:10+00:00

Document:
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.—The U.S. Supreme Court held that the “first sale” doctrine applies to copyrighted works lawfully made abroad. So, Kirtsaeng’s textbook-arbitrage practice (having textbooks purchased abroad cheaply so that he could sell them in the U.S.) is lawful. SCOTUSBlog has good coverage here.
The ISOHunt case, Columbia Pictures Industries v. Fung—The Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling holding that under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), the defendants were liable for inducing copyright infringement through BitTorrent. ISOHunt’s actions didn’t fall under any of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. Importantly though, the panel refused to hold that inducement liability is inherently incompatible with protection under the safe harbors. “[W]e are not clairvoyant enough to be sure that there are no instances in which a defendant otherwise liable for contributory copyright infringement could meet the prerequisites for one or more of the DMCA safe harbors.” Bloomberg has a write-up here.
In other news the Associated Press won its suit against news-aggregator Meltwater. AP v. Meltwater. Judge Cote in S.D.N.Y. rejected Meltwater’s fair-use defense to AP’s allegations. Meltwater has vowed to appeal.
The Suicide of Aaron Swartz: An Appropriate Platform For CFAA Reform?
The January 11, 2013 suicide of internet activist Aaron Swartz has sparked a debate about the proper scope and application of the criminal provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.
Stanford Law School’s Professor Jennifer Granick disagrees, and she chastises Professor Kerr for lumping Aaron’s alleged conduct of “circumventing code-based restrictions” in with the crime of ”using someone else’s password, which is the quintessential access without authorization” proscribed by the CFAA because, as Professor Granick explained, “[u]sing another person’s password gets you access to their files. Circumventing the JSTOR/MIT efforts to block him merely got Aaron _fast_ access to files he was already authorized to download.” Professor Granick, like Professor Kerr, has written a two-part blog post, entitled Towards Learning from Losing Aaron Swartz.
The outcry surrounding Aaron’s suicide is understandable. As JSTOR recognizes: “He was a truly gifted person who made important contributions to the development of the internet and the web from which we all benefit.” Yet a reform of the CFAA should be based on desired, rational outcomes, not a grief reaction to the tragic loss of Aaron Swartz.
Professor Granick proposes that we learn from losing Aaron. I agree. But the lessons from the loss of such genius should be infinitely more thoughtful and intricate than some myopic fix of the CFAA.
Comments Off on The Suicide of Aaron Swartz: An Appropriate Platform For CFAA Reform?
Yesterday in WPIX v. ivi, the Second Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction against ivi, Inc. and its CEO, prohibiting them from re-transmitting copyrighted cable TV programs.
ivi itself began the litigation. After receiving cease-and-desist letters, ivi filed suit in federal court in the Western District of Washington seeking declaratory relief. A week later, WPIX filed suit in New York; the Washington action was dismissed. ivi, Inc. v. Fisher Commc’ns, Inc., No. C10-1512JLR, 2011 WL 197419 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 19, 2011).
In a copyright infringement case of significant importance, the first battle has been won by publishers American Institute of Physics and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. In February, the American Institute of Physics and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. filed suit against two law firms, including Minnesota patent prosecution firm Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, alleging copyright infringement. The publishers claim that the law firms infringed their copyrights by improperly copying journal articles for submission to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and for their own internal use.
The case has potential impact on the legal community as a whole, not just the patent bar. If copying a journal article for submission to the USPTO constitutes infringement, wouldn’t copying the same article for submission to the court in support of a summary judgment constitute infringement?
The publishers satisfied their pleading obligations by simply pleading ownership of the copyright, providing registration certificates for the journals, and by alleging Schwegman copied their protected works pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).
This is merely a warm-up for the real battle which lies ahead concerning the scope of the fair use defense. The case continues under several watchful eyes.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1030
 v. 
 v.