Source: http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/gvetter/classes/DigitalTransactionsFall2015/DigitalTransactionsFall2015.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:13:14+00:00

Document:
To study the substantive law of digital transactions and electronic commerce (with related intellectual property concepts) in a comprehensive manner, to consider questions related to the subject matter, and to integrate the subject matter with the analytical and practical skills necessary to the practice of law.
Please read carefully the Generally Applicable Syllabus Information. This document sets forth course policy for attendance, preparation and participation, use of computers, and other items. A complete understanding of this document is necessary to take full meaning from the Class Schedule and Other Information set forth immediately below. Section III of the document, examination and grading, does not apply to this course.
There is no requirement to purchase a statutory supplement.
Prerequisites There is no prerequisite.
Brief Description of Coverage: This class will meet in two 1.5 credit-hour blocks each week. Assignments will be detailed in the table below as the semester progresses.
Absences Limit: Assuming two class meetings a week, six or less absences constitutes attendance meeting the eighty percent requirement. More than six absences means that the eighty percent requirement is not met.
Take-home final just after thanksgiving, but before the formal exam period begins on Dec. 3, graded blind against your exam number. The final will be issued with several days for completion. There will be an upper limit on the number of words allowed in an answer, inclusive of footnotes. Superior class participation can boost your grade one level, for example, from B to B+.
The procedure and structure of the take-home final will closely parallel what is given at this link (document updated on 11/16/2015, revisions shown in red-line format).
The examination problem will be distributed at 9:00 a.m. CST on Monday, November 30, 2015.
Your answer will be due before 10:30 a.m. CST on Thursday, December 3, 2015.
Here is a document about how to write answers for my exams and some information about how I evaluate these answers. This document is somewhat oriented toward in-class final exam answers written under time pressure, but has insights relevant to the take-home final used for this course.
The next paragraph gives a link to the Spring 2008 Internet Law examination. There is significant overlap in coverage with the material covered in Digital Transactions. Thus, sections A and B of the posted examination (and answer) are relevant and inspirational for the types of issues and presentation of issues for the Digital Transactions take-home final. But there are exceptions: (i) there is a click-fraud issue in section A, and we did not study click-fraud; (ii) section B has a 17 U.S.C. §114 issue related to digital music compulsory licenses that we did not study.
Here is the Spring 2008 Internet Law examination, and here is the composite student answer. Please note that the composite answer does not necessarily address every issue, nor resolve every issue in such a way as to earn all the points for that issue.
In this cell I will post answers to questions sent to me that create a need for the answer to be shared with the entire class.
Any such questions that need to be posed after the final exam issues must be sent to me indirectly, through the Executive Secretary for the MPS Suite, Ms. Robin R. Huff, (713) 743-2128, rrhuff@central.uh.edu. Ms. Huff will make the question anonymous and forward it to me.
Questions before the final exam issues can be sent to me directly.
Q1 (11/24/15): I have a question about the Rescuecom and 1-800 contacts cases. I thought these cases spoke to what constitutes a "use in commerce" but as I was reviewing the Sept. 10th lecture, I think you implied that what constitutes a "use in commerce" is still unsettled and rather that these cases speak to factors 5 & 6 in the likelihood of confusion test. Could you please clarify whether "use in commerce" is unsettled or if I can use the Rescuecom and 1-800 contacts cases as examples for what is a use in commerce and what is not.
A1: I navigated our coverage in the class away from the predicate question some courts have posed under the "use in commerce" framework - evaluating whether the use is a "trademark use". We didn't get into that doctrine or the questions around it, so it would not be fair game for the final.
A2: As to part 1, problem 1.3 isn't intended to be a comprehensive choice of law exercise. The only two points of the problem are: (i) the United States first amendment won't help Don Branson in other countries, and, (ii) publishing information that intentionally aims at the residents of another jurisdiction might very well produce a result that is unsurprising - that jurisdiction will be found in that location. As to part 2, there are many snippets of law in the class there only a tiny amount of law is given. That is the case with the Brussels I Regulation, art. 23, where the full scope of what you are responsible for is the sentence on page 52: "Generally, if one party to a contract resides in the European Union, then the courts of any member state will uphold a provision in the agreement designating the courts of another member state as the exclusive forum. Brussels I Regulation, art. 23".
Q3 (11/29/15): [_1_] I have a couple of questions about the Softman case. Could you please clarify the difference between factor 1 (temporally unlimited possession) and Factor 2 (absence of time limits on copy possession), "absence of time limits" and "temporally unlimited" seem the same to me. Could you also please clarify how the DSC and SoftMan cases fit together? More specifically, can we fit DSC's focus on "terms inconsistent with ownership" under some of the factors given in SoftMan, or could "terms inconsistent with ownership" be its own factor? [_2_] I also have a question about citing (I know you went over this pretty thoroughly in class). Do we need to cite every verifiable statement of fact (like holdings and facts of the cases) or can we only cite to assertions that we think need the extra support?
A3: As to part 1, I agree that there is no material difference between the first two factors given in the list at the bottom of page 579. DSC is a case where no copy was owned by the end user; Softman is a case where copies were owned, thus invoking the first sale doctrine. Yes, I think one could understand the DSC idea of terms inconsistent with ownership from the perspective of the more elaborate and detailed factors given in SoftMan.
Cites for your propositions that need cites should come only from the course materials. This can include the remarks from the lectures. Citing other material is prohibited. Your inferences, conclusions, arguments or observations are items that do not need cites.
Write your answer with Professor Vetter as your direct audience. Thus, terms of art and other baseline knowledge do not need definition or explanation if you are confident it is something this audience knows.
What to cite is a judgment call, but you do not need to cite "every verifiable statement of fact" One cites to support an argument one is making. You should cite when you think you need support for that argument.
Q1 (received from Robin Huff, 8 a.m. on 12/2/2015): The second question asks what actions should Nose bring and Footnote 14 states that Nose for sure understands it wants to bring UDRP and ACPA actions. Is footnote 14 meant to dismiss UDRP and ACPA actions from our discussion as they are obviously understood?
A1 (10:35 a.m. on 12/2/2015): If the footnote had intended to remove treatment of UDRP and ACPA from coverage, it would have said that Nose waives bringing a UDRP and ACPA action.
First day/week's assignment: Read this course web page, the linked Generally Applicable Syllabus Information (ignoring section III), and the assignments detailed in the table below for the first day/week of class.
Video Recordings of Class Sessions Here is a link to the UHLC media server for the stream of video recordings for this course. Your cougarnet credentials are needed for access.
Audio Recording of Class Sessions I will audio tape the class sessions using a portable recorder and post links to the audio tracks on the class web site for the sole and limited educational purpose of allowing students to stream the recorded sessions to review or to enable students who missed a class to hear the class presentation. Any audio tracks created will be deleted and destroyed shortly after the final exam for the class. Since I call on students, there is a slight chance that your contributions to class discussion, whether voluntary or while on call, may be included in the audio recording. Your continued registration in this class indicates your acquiescence to any such incidental recording for the purposes described above unless, if you have concerns about this, you come speak with me as soon as possible but in no event later than the first day of the second week of class.
Friday, October 23, 2015, will be a makeup class for the class to be missed on Thursday, October 29. The makeup class will be at the normal class time, in the same class room, 3 BLB.
The last class period will be Thursday, Nov. 19.
The table linked below provides the detailed assignments for this course. It also may provide links to materials for each class and other items related to the course. In order to allow flexibility in the class, assignments beyond those posted for the next week are subject to change; therefore, students who may wish to read ahead are urged to contact the professor before doing so. The rate of progress through the materials depends on the class dynamics.
Call assignment will be as described in the Generally Applicable Syllabus, or per the method below, depending on the number of course enrollees.
Revision to Generally Applicable Syllabus: Call assignment for items is by individual using the first letter of the last name, proceeding alphabetically most of the time. In some instances, multiple persons share the same first letter of the last name, in which case a number indicates who the person is based on alphabetical order. If a person assigned to an item does not appear for a class session, I will look for volunteers. Adjustment of individual item assignments may occur up to mid-evening (around 7 p.m.) of the night before class.
Students must email me if they will not attend in order for this system to work well.
The assigned casebook provides thirty-six assignments within a book organized around three parts. Part One corresponds to chapter one. Part Two corresponds to chapters two and three. Part Three corresponds to chapters four through seven. There are twenty-six class periods available, thus the goal is to cover approximately twenty-six of the thirty-six available assignments. The list of assignments below is subject to adjustment during the first half of the course once a rate of progression is established.
Panavision v. Toeppen district court case.
For the last 20 minutes of class on Thursday 9/3/2015 we broke into groups of three to use class time to study the three PayPal arbitration provisions in the document linked to the left. We will continue with this for about the first 10 minutes of class on Tuesday 9/8/2015. Then each group of three will pick a person to report observations. We will use another chuck of class time to study the provisions based on the groups’ reports. The task is to notice the changes to the PayPal arbitration provisions over time and try to come up with reasons you think might have caused the PayPal attorneys to make the changes. Version One is from the case of Comb v. PayPal, and is only a paragraph. But Version Two is a page, and Version Three is 2.5 pages, so there is need for some advance study to be effective on 9/8/2015. The case of Comb v. PayPal provides a primary lens through which to hypothesize likely changes to the provisions. But your insights generally can also apply to other types of changes you see. This is not meant to induce any other outside research; please just read, a couple of times, the provisions very closely and notice changes.
Please read the Development Agreements pages very closely and come to class on 9/22/2015 with at least two questions / comments / or observations. We will have everyone on the class give one such to the room.
Dancing baby video is here.
A discussion of YouTube music licensing.
A Harry Fox Agency post that is also relevant.
Page 622, at the bottom, ends the EULA and begins another agreement, starting with the line: "SOFTWARE LICENSE, SERVICES, SUPPORT AND ENHANCEMENTS AGREEMENT"
Open Source Licenses: Gomulkiewicz, How Copyleft Uses License Rights . . .
Case summary from the Jacobson side. A full history of the case from the Jacobson perspective.
Assignments 25 through 29, below, are all omitted.

References: §114
 art. 23
 art. 23
 v. 
 v. 
 v.