DOCSLIB.ORG

Rise of the Api Copyright Dead?: an Updated Epitaph for Copyright Protection of Network and Functional Features of Computer Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rise of the Api Copyright Dead?: an Updated Epitaph for Copyright Protection of Network and Functional Features of Computer Software Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 31, Special Issue Spring 2018 RISE OF THE API COPYRIGHT DEAD?: AN UPDATED EPITAPH FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF NETWORK AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE Peter S. Menell* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 307 II. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR COMPUTER SOFTWARE 1.0 ........... 313 A. A Personal Account .................................................................. 313 B. Setting the Stage ....................................................................... 314 1. The Intellectual Property Backdrop: Legislation and Legislative History .......................................................... 315 2. Network Economics .............................................................. 318 3. The Industrial Backdrop ........................................................ 319 C. The API Copyright War ........................................................... 321 1. Jurisprudence ......................................................................... 322 i. The Early Years .................................................................. 323 ii. The Modern Software Copyright Era ................................ 326 2. Legislative Developments ..................................................... 341 D. The End of the First API Copyright War and the Logic of the Intellectual Property System ........................................ 342 III. COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR COMPUTER SOFTWARE 2.0: THE ORACLE WAVE ....................................................................... 343 A. The Technological and Industrial Context ............................... 345 1. The Java Story ....................................................................... 346 i. The Corporate Environment: Sun Microsystems in the 1980s and 1990s ................................................. 346 ii. Development of Java.......................................................... 347 iii. The Setting Sun ................................................................. 355 2. Google, the Mobile Computing Revolution, and Development of Android ................................................ 357 3. Oracle’s Acquisition of Sun Microsystems ........................... 372 * Koret Professor of Law and Director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, University of California at Berkeley School of Law. I thank Jonathan Band, Dylan Hadfield- Menell, Justin Hughes, Mark Lemley, David Nimmer, Tim Simcoe, and Christopher Yoo as well as participants at various presentations (Boston University School of Law, Harvard Law School, New York University School of Law, University of Pennsylvania School of Law, U.C. Berkeley School of Law, U.C.L.A. School of Law) for comments on earlier drafts. Alex Barata, Louise Decoppet, Amit Elazari, and Andrea Hall provided excellent research assistance. 306 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology [Vol. 31 B. The Oracle v. Google Litigation ............................................... 375 1. Oracle’s Complaint and Pretrial Case Management .............. 375 2. 2012 Trial .............................................................................. 378 3. Federal Circuit Appeal .......................................................... 386 i. Copyrightability .................................................................. 388 a. Declaring Code ............................................................... 388 b. SSO of the API Packages ............................................... 389 ii. Fair Use ............................................................................. 390 4. Interlocutory Certiorari Petition ............................................ 390 5. 2016 Fair Use Trial ............................................................... 391 i. Opening Arguments ............................................................ 393 ii. Google’s Case in Chief ...................................................... 395 iii. Oracle’s Case in Chief ..................................................... 400 iv. Google’s Rebuttal ............................................................. 404 v. Closing Arguments ............................................................. 405 vi. Jury Verdict ....................................................................... 410 6. The Road Ahead .................................................................... 410 C. The Current Murky State of API Copyright Protection ........... 414 IV. THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF API COPYRIGHT PROTECTION .................................................................................. 416 A. Legal Analysis .......................................................................... 417 1. Overarching Principles .......................................................... 418 2. Critique of the Federal Circuit Copyrightability Decision .......................................................................... 421 i. Misinterpretation of the Copyright Act ............................... 422 a. Misreading Section 102 .................................................. 422 b. Legislative Intent and Purpose ....................................... 424 ii. Misreading Ninth Circuit Jurisprudence ........................... 427 a. Viability of the Lotus Decision in the Ninth Circuit ....... 427 b. Disregarding the Sega/Sony Decisions ........................... 429 c. Resurrecting the Third Circuit’s Apple/Whelan Decisions .......................................................... 431 iii. Conflation of Expressive and Technological “Creativity” ............................................................. 433 iv. Overly Rigid Approach to Limiting Doctrines .................. 438 v. Treating API Design as Variable Expression Rather than Unique Function............................................... 442 3. Proper Legal Frameworks for Analyzing Copyright Protection for Computer Software .................................. 443 i. API Design .......................................................................... 444 ii. Computer Code .................................................................. 446 a. Independent Creation ...................................................... 447 b. Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison ................................ 450 Special Issue] API Copyright 307 iii. Other Software Elements .................................................. 451 B. Policy Analysis ......................................................................... 452 1. Economic Analysis of Legal Protection for Computer Software .......................................................................... 452 i. The Public Goods Problem ................................................. 452 ii. Network Externalities ........................................................ 456 2. The Evolution of Software Markets ...................................... 460 3. The Optimality of Limited Copyright Protection for Computer Software ......................................................... 464 4. Impediments to Achieving the Proper Copyright Balance Posed by the Oracle v. Google Litigation ......... 471 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 473 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY .................................................................. 474 APPENDIX B: PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANTS ........................................... 479 APPENDIX C: TIMELINE .................................................................... 482 APPENDIX D: THE 37 JAVA API PACKAGES IMPLEMENTED IN ANDROID ....................................................................................... 486 APPENDIX E: 2016 FAIR USE TRIAL SUMMARY ............................... 489 I. INTRODUCTION As the great Yogi Berra redundantly said, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.”1 For IP scholars and practitioners of my generation, Ora- cle Corporation’s lawsuit alleging that Google’s Android mobile plat- form infringes copyright in the Java application program interface (“API”) elements has been a stroll down memory lane.2 Or perhaps less nostalgically for those in the software industry, a zombie horror film set in Silicon Valley.3 1. See YOGI BERRA, THE YOGI BOOK: I DIDN’T SAY EVERYTHING I SAID 9 (1998) (ex- plaining that the déjà vu quotation was inspired by Yankees’ sluggers Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris’s repeated back-to-back home runs in the early 1960s). 2. As Judge Alsup noted in an early ruling in the Oracle litigation, “[t]he term API is slippery.” See Order Partially Granting and Partially Denying Defendant’s Mot. for Sum- mary Judgment on Copyright Claim at 4, Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (No. C 10-03561 WHA) (2011 WL 5576228). We will exam- ine the varying and evolving meaning of API throughout this journey. 3. Cf. List of Zombie Films, WIKIPEDIA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ zombie_films [https://perma.cc/TD6M-B36U]. Commentary and news reporting of the Oracle case spoke in dire terms. See, e.g., Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Oracle v. Google, and the End of Programming as We Know It, COMPUTERWORLD (May 16, 2016), http://www.computerworld.com/article/3070001/application-development/oracle-v-google- and-the-end-of-programming-as-we-know-it.html [https://perma.cc/SY5L-WPZC]; Klint Finley, The Oracle-Google Case Will Decide the Future of Software, WIRED (May 23, 2016), http://www.wired.com/2016/05/oracle-google-case-will-decide-future-software/ [https://perma.cc/6U69-YGJW] (opining
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Java Programming 18Mca32c
    JAVA PROGRAMMING 18MCA32C Unit – I INTRODUCTION FACULTY Dr. K. ARTHI MCA, M.Phil., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Postgraduate Department of Computer Applications, Government Arts College (Autonomous), Coimbatore 641018. JAVA PROGRAMMING 18MCA32C Syllabus Objective: On successful completion of the course the students should have understood the Basic concept and fundamentals of core java classes, API, OOPS concept in Java and features of OOPS. UNIT I: The Genesis of Java - The Java class Libraries - Data types, Variables - Operators - Arrays. Control Statements: Selection statements - Iteration statements - Jump statements. Introducing classes: Class Fundamentals - Declaring objects - Methods. UNIT II: Constructors - this keyword - Garbage collection. Overloading Methods - Access controls - Nested and Inner classes. Inheritance: Inheritance basics - using Super - Method overriding - Dynamic method Dispatch - Abstract classes - using final with inheritance. Packages and Interfaces: Packages - Access protection - Importing Packages - Interfaces. UNIT III: Exception Handling: Exception Handling Fundamentals - Java’s Built in Exceptions - creating own Exception subclasses. Multithreaded Programming: The Java Thread Model - Creating a Thread - Synchronization - Inter Thread communication. UNIT IV: I/O Basics - Reading console Input -Writing Console Output - Reading and writing Files - Exploring java.io. Applet Fundamentals - Applet Basics - Introducing the AWT. UNIT V: Software Development using Java: Java Beans introduction - Servlets: Life cycle - A simple servlet - servlet API - Handling HTTP Request and Responses - Session tracking. Networking Basics - Remote Method Invocation (RMI) - Accessing Database with JDBC. TEXT BOOKS: 1. Herbert Schildt, “The Complete Reference Java 2”, 2nd Ed, Tata McGraw Hill (I) Pvt. Ltd.,2002. 2. H.M. Deitel and P. J. Deitel, “Java How to Program”, 6th Ed, PHI/Pearson Education Asia 2005. History of Java 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Security in Cloud Computing a Security Assessment of Cloud Computing Providers for an Online Receipt Storage
    Security in Cloud Computing A Security Assessment of Cloud Computing Providers for an Online Receipt Storage Mats Andreassen Kåre Marius Blakstad Master of Science in Computer Science Submission date: June 2010 Supervisor: Lillian Røstad, IDI Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of Computer and Information Science Problem Description We will survey some current cloud computing vendors and compare them to find patterns in how their feature sets are evolving. The start-up firm dSafe intends to exploit the promises of cloud computing in order to launch their business idea with only marginal hardware and licensing costs. We must define the criteria for how dSafe's application can be sufficiently secure in the cloud as well as how dSafe can get there. Assignment given: 14. January 2010 Supervisor: Lillian Røstad, IDI Abstract Considerations with regards to security issues and demands must be addressed before migrating an application into a cloud computing environment. Different vendors, Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services and Google AppEngine, provide different capabilities and solutions to the individual areas of concern presented by each application. Through a case study of an online receipt storage application from the company dSafe, a basis is formed for the evaluation. The three cloud computing vendors are assessed with regards to a security assessment framework provided by the Cloud Security Alliance and the application of this on the case study. Finally, the study is concluded with a set of general recommendations and the recommendation of a cloud vendor. This is based on a number of security as- pects related to the case study’s existence in the cloud.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Cybersecurity Melanie J
    American University Business Law Review Volume 2 | Issue 2 Article 1 2013 Fiddling on the Roof: Recent Developments in Cybersecurity Melanie J. Teplinsky Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Teplinsky, Melanie J. "Fiddling on the Roof: Recent Developments in Cybersecurity." American University Business Law Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 225-322. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Business Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES FIDDLING ON THE ROOF: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CYBERSECURITY MELANIE J. TEPLINSKY* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................... ..... 227 I. The Promise and Peril of Cyberspace .............. ........ 227 II. Self-Regulation and the Challenge of Critical Infrastructure ......... 232 III. The Changing Face of Cybersecurity: Technology Trends ............ 233 A. Mobile Technology ......................... 233 B. Cloud Computing ........................... ...... 237 C. Social Networking ................................. 241 IV. The Changing Face of Cybersecurity: Cyberthreat Trends ............ 244 A. Cybercrime ................................. ..... 249 1. Costs of Cybercrime
    [Show full text]
  • Interrupt Handling in Linux
    Department Informatik Technical Reports / ISSN 2191-5008 Valentin Rothberg Interrupt Handling in Linux Technical Report CS-2015-07 November 2015 Please cite as: Valentin Rothberg, “Interrupt Handling in Linux,” Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat¨ Erlangen-Nurnberg,¨ Dept. of Computer Science, Technical Reports, CS-2015-07, November 2015. Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat¨ Erlangen-Nurnberg¨ Department Informatik Martensstr. 3 · 91058 Erlangen · Germany www.cs.fau.de Interrupt Handling in Linux Valentin Rothberg Distributed Systems and Operating Systems Dept. of Computer Science, University of Erlangen, Germany [email protected] November 8, 2015 An interrupt is an event that alters the sequence of instructions executed by a processor and requires immediate attention. When the processor receives an interrupt signal, it may temporarily switch control to an inter- rupt service routine (ISR) and the suspended process (i.e., the previously running program) will be resumed as soon as the interrupt is being served. The generic term interrupt is oftentimes used synonymously for two terms, interrupts and exceptions [2]. An exception is a synchronous event that occurs when the processor detects an error condition while executing an instruction. Such an error condition may be a devision by zero, a page fault, a protection violation, etc. An interrupt, on the other hand, is an asynchronous event that occurs at random times during execution of a pro- gram in response to a signal from hardware. A proper and timely handling of interrupts is critical to the performance, but also to the security of a computer system. In general, interrupts can be emitted by hardware as well as by software. Software interrupts (e.g., via the INT n instruction of the x86 instruction set architecture (ISA) [5]) are means to change the execution context of a program to a more privileged interrupt context in order to enter the kernel and, in contrast to hardware interrupts, occur synchronously to the currently running program.
    [Show full text]
  • The Performance Paradox of the JVM: Why More Hardware Means More
    Expert Tip The Performance Paradox of the JVM: Why More Hardware Means More As computer hardware gets cheaper and faster, administrators managing Java based servers are frequently encountering serious problems when managing their runtime environments. JVM handles the task of garbage collection for the developer - cleaning up the space a developer has allocated for objects once an instance no longer has any references pointing to it. Some garbage collection is done quickly and invisibly. But certain sanitation tasks, which fortunately occur with minimal frequency, take significantly longer, causing the JVM to pause, and raising the ire of end users and administrators alike. Read this TheServerSide.com Expert Tip to better understand the JVM performance problem, how the JVM manages memory and how best to approach JVM Performance. Sponsored By: TheServerSide.com Expert Tip The Performance Paradox of the JVM: Why More Hardware Means More Expert Tip The Performance Paradox of the JVM: Why More Hardware Means More Table of Contents The Performance Paradox of the JVM: Why More Hardware Means More Failures Resources from Azul Systems Sponsored By: Page 2 of 8 TheServerSide.com Expert Tip The Performance Paradox of the JVM: Why More Hardware Means More The Performance Paradox of the JVM: Why More Hardware Means More Failures By Cameron McKenzie The Problem of the Unpredictable Pause As computer hardware gets cheaper and faster, administrators managing Java based servers are frequently encountering serious problems when managing their runtime environments. While our servers are getting decked out with faster and faster hardware, the Java Virtual Machines (JVMs) that are running on them can't effectively leverage the extra hardware without hitting a wall and temporarily freezing.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Cloud Computing with the Simple Cloud API and Apache Libcloud Doug Tidwell Cloud Computing Evangelist, IBM [email protected]
    Open Cloud Computing with the Simple Cloud API and Apache libcloud Doug Tidwell Cloud Computing Evangelist, IBM [email protected] Session 7665 Agenda • Portability and interoperability • A few words about APIs • The Simple Cloud API • Storage • Queues • Documents • Controlling VMs with Apache libcloud • Resources / Next steps The problem Vendor lock-in • If there’s a new technology, any talented programmer will want to use it. • Maybe the shiny new thing is appropriate for what we’re doing. • Maybe not. • We’re probably going to use it anyway. • The challenge is to walk the line between using the newest, coolest thing and avoiding vendor lock-in. Portability and Interoperability • In writing flexible code for the cloud, there are two key concepts: • Portability is the ability to run components or systems written for one cloud provider in another cloud provider’s environment. • Interoperability is the ability to write one piece of code that works with multiple cloud providers, regardless of the differences between them. How standards work • For a standards effort to work, three things have to happen: • The standard has to solve a common problem in an elegant way. • The standard has to be implemented consistently by vendors. • Users have to insist that the products they use implement the standard. How standards work • All three things have to happen. • If the standard doesn't solve a common problem, or if it solves it in an awkward way, the standard fails. • If the standard isn't implemented by anyone, the standard fails. • If customers buy and use products even though they don't implement the standard, the standard fails.
    [Show full text]
  • Java (Programming Langua a (Programming Language)
    Java (programming language) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedialopedia "Java language" redirects here. For the natural language from the Indonesian island of Java, see Javanese language. Not to be confused with JavaScript. Java multi-paradigm: object-oriented, structured, imperative, Paradigm(s) functional, generic, reflective, concurrent James Gosling and Designed by Sun Microsystems Developer Oracle Corporation Appeared in 1995[1] Java Standard Edition 8 Update Stable release 5 (1.8.0_5) / April 15, 2014; 2 months ago Static, strong, safe, nominative, Typing discipline manifest Major OpenJDK, many others implementations Dialects Generic Java, Pizza Ada 83, C++, C#,[2] Eiffel,[3] Generic Java, Mesa,[4] Modula- Influenced by 3,[5] Oberon,[6] Objective-C,[7] UCSD Pascal,[8][9] Smalltalk Ada 2005, BeanShell, C#, Clojure, D, ECMAScript, Influenced Groovy, J#, JavaScript, Kotlin, PHP, Python, Scala, Seed7, Vala Implementation C and C++ language OS Cross-platform (multi-platform) GNU General Public License, License Java CommuniCommunity Process Filename .java , .class, .jar extension(s) Website For Java Developers Java Programming at Wikibooks Java is a computer programming language that is concurrent, class-based, object-oriented, and specifically designed to have as few impimplementation dependencies as possible.ble. It is intended to let application developers "write once, run ananywhere" (WORA), meaning that code that runs on one platform does not need to be recompiled to rurun on another. Java applications ns are typically compiled to bytecode (class file) that can run on anany Java virtual machine (JVM)) regardless of computer architecture. Java is, as of 2014, one of tthe most popular programming ng languages in use, particularly for client-server web applications, witwith a reported 9 million developers.[10][11] Java was originallyy developed by James Gosling at Sun Microsystems (which has since merged into Oracle Corporation) and released in 1995 as a core component of Sun Microsystems'Micros Java platform.
    [Show full text]
  • R, the Software, Finds Fans
    R, the Software, Finds Fans in Data Analysts - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/technology/business-computing/0... W elcom e to Get Started TimesPeople Lets You Share and Discover the Best of NYTimes.com 12:48 PM Tim esPeople No, thanks W hat‘s this? HOME PAGE TODAY'S PAPER VIDEO MOST POPULAR TIMES TOPICS My Account W elcome, corostat Log Out Help Search All NYTimes.com Business Com puting WORLD U.S. N.Y. / REGION BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEALTH SPORTS OPINION ARTS STYLE TRAVEL JOBS REAL ESTATE AUTOS Search Technology Inside Technology Bits Personal Tech » Internet Start-Ups Business Computing Companies Blog » Cellphones, Cameras, Computers and more Data Analysts Captivated by R‘s Power More Articles in Technology » Stuart Isett for The New York Times R first appeared in 1996, when the statistics professors Robert Gentleman, left, and Ross Ihaka released the code as a free software package. By ASHLEE VANCE Published: January 6, 2009 E-MAIL To some people R is just the 18th letter of the alphabet. To others, PRINT it‘s the rating on racy movies, a measure of an attic‘s insulation or SINGLE PAGE Advertise on NYTimes.com what pirates in movies say. REPRINTS SAVE Breaking News Alerts by E-Mail R is also the name of a popular SHARE Sign up to be notified when important news breaks. Related programming language used by a colombi@ unibg.it Bits: R You Ready for R? growing number of data analysts Change E-mail Address | Privacy Policy The R Project for Statistical inside corporations and academia.
    [Show full text]
  • Marconi Society - Wikipedia
    9/23/2019 Marconi Society - Wikipedia Marconi Society The Guglielmo Marconi International Fellowship Foundation, briefly called Marconi Foundation and currently known as The Marconi Society, was established by Gioia Marconi Braga in 1974[1] to commemorate the centennial of the birth (April 24, 1874) of her father Guglielmo Marconi. The Marconi International Fellowship Council was established to honor significant contributions in science and technology, awarding the Marconi Prize and an annual $100,000 grant to a living scientist who has made advances in communication technology that benefits mankind. The Marconi Fellows are Sir Eric A. Ash (1984), Paul Baran (1991), Sir Tim Berners-Lee (2002), Claude Berrou (2005), Sergey Brin (2004), Francesco Carassa (1983), Vinton G. Cerf (1998), Andrew Chraplyvy (2009), Colin Cherry (1978), John Cioffi (2006), Arthur C. Clarke (1982), Martin Cooper (2013), Whitfield Diffie (2000), Federico Faggin (1988), James Flanagan (1992), David Forney, Jr. (1997), Robert G. Gallager (2003), Robert N. Hall (1989), Izuo Hayashi (1993), Martin Hellman (2000), Hiroshi Inose (1976), Irwin M. Jacobs (2011), Robert E. Kahn (1994) Sir Charles Kao (1985), James R. Killian (1975), Leonard Kleinrock (1986), Herwig Kogelnik (2001), Robert W. Lucky (1987), James L. Massey (1999), Robert Metcalfe (2003), Lawrence Page (2004), Yash Pal (1980), Seymour Papert (1981), Arogyaswami Paulraj (2014), David N. Payne (2008), John R. Pierce (1979), Ronald L. Rivest (2007), Arthur L. Schawlow (1977), Allan Snyder (2001), Robert Tkach (2009), Gottfried Ungerboeck (1996), Andrew Viterbi (1990), Jack Keil Wolf (2011), Jacob Ziv (1995). In 2015, the prize went to Peter T. Kirstein for bringing the internet to Europe. Since 2008, Marconi has also issued the Paul Baran Marconi Society Young Scholar Awards.
    [Show full text]
  • Lookout! (V108)
    Crossing the Digital Divide (v108) “Lookout!” by Joseph Feigon for the Observer Scott McNealy is an American businessman. He is most famous for co-founding the computer technology company Sun Microsystems in 1982 along with Vinod Khosla, Bill Joy and Andy Bechtolsheim. Oracle Corporation (Larry Ellison’s database client) purchased Sun Microsystems in 2010. Mr. McNealy was one of the relative success stories in the early days of the Internet. Sun Microsystems built exceptional servers, and was a market leader with their Unix operating system as well as their corporate support of the Open Source movement, including Linux. Sun ‘cuda been’ a contender. Lookout was McNealy's inverted name for Outlook, Microsoft's e-mail client. McNealy says you need to "look out" for trouble when using Outlook. McNealy frequently cites Outlook's well documented security problems. He says that to get the most functionality out of Outlook you'll also need Microsoft's Exchange Server. But the combination, and the Microsoft- only mail and calendaring protocol required to connect them (MAPI), is yet another example of how Microsoft locks businesses into proprietary technologies that eliminate choice and flexibility. Microsoft is still here, Sun Microsystems is not. Proprietary software continues to dominate the retail customer (Windows, anyone?), as well as many big companies. Those success stories in the Open Source space build applications on an Operating System (Linux, BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, etc.) that is open, meaning, free to you and me. Open, as in, anyone with the desire and/or ability can review each line of coding that makes things work.
    [Show full text]
  • From Safe Harbor to Choppy Waters: Youtube, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,And a Much Needed Change of Course
    Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Volume 10 Issue 1 Issue 1 - Fall 2007 Article 3 2007 From Safe Harbor to Choppy Waters: YouTube, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,and a Much Needed Change of Course Lauren B. Patten Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Lauren B. Patten, From Safe Harbor to Choppy Waters: YouTube, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,and a Much Needed Change of Course, 10 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 179 (2020) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol10/iss1/3 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Safe Harbor to Choppy Waters: YouTube, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and a Much Needed Change of Course ABSTRACT YouTube.com, named Time magazine's "Invention of the Year" for 2006 and widely recognized as the most-visited video site on the Internet, has changed the face of online entertainment. With the site's acquisition by Google in October 2006, the possibilities for YouTube's growth became truly endless. However, there is a darker side to the story of the Internet sensation, one that is grounded in its potential liability for copyright infringement. The issue is that many of the most-viewed and most-popular videos on the site are copyrighted.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property
    TULANE JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VOLUME 10 FALL 2007 Increasing Access to Knowledge Through Fair Use—Analyzing the Google Litigation To Unleash Developing Countries Douglas L. Rogers* I. ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE ...................................................................... 3 II. IN SPITE OF THE COPYING OF COMPLETE WORKS, THE PROVISION OF LIMITED INFORMATION FROM THE GOOGLE DATABASE MAKES THE LIBRARY PROJECT A FAIR USE ........................ 7 A. The Google Library Litigation ................................................... 7 B. Fair Use Is a Crucial Element of the Copyright Balance ........ 11 C. Increasing Access Favors Fair Use ........................................... 21 1. Sony: Time-Shifting Is a Fair Use ................................... 21 2. Campbell: Increasing Access Through Transformative Works Favors Fair Use ........................... 27 3. Summary .......................................................................... 30 D. It Is the End Result that Counts in Determining Fair Use ............................................................................................. 31 1. Fair Use Seeks a Balanced Result ................................... 31 2. Interim Scanning of a Picture and Then Modifying It ...................................................................... 33 a. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. ....................................... 33 b. Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. ............................................................................ 35 * © 2007
    [Show full text]