Footnote 1:
The Copyright Clause: [The Congress shall have power] "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" U.S. Const art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 8.
Footnote 2:
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Footnote 3:
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1897).
Footnote 4:
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Footnote 5:
United States v. Moghadam, 175 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1036 (2000).
Footnote 6:
17 U.S.C. §302 (1998).
Footnote 7:
17 U.S.C. §106 (1998).
Footnote 8:
In Walt Disney v. Filmation, 628 F.Supp. 871 (C.D. Cal. 1986), for example, Filmation used copies of Disney's animation cells in the process of making their own animated film, but Filmation's final marketed product did not resemble Disney's work closely enough to infringe copyright. A court held that copying Disney's work during the production process in itself could be copyright infringement.
Footnote 9:
17 U.S.C. §104 (1998).
Footnote 10:
17 U.S.C. §102 (1998).
Footnote 11:
Information on copyright protection for computer programs is available at: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ61.pdf. We also have a local copy here.
Footnote 12:
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).
Footnote 13:
17 U.S.C. §117 (1998).
Footnote 14:
Information Infrastructure Task Force, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights 64 (1995), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/
Footnote 15:
17 U.S.C. §102(b) (1998).
Footnote 16:
Computer Associates v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).
Footnote 17:
4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03[F] (2001).
Footnote 18:
Lotus v. Borland, 29 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995).
Footnote 19:
Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971).
Footnote 20:
Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 306 (2d Cir. 1963).
Footnote 21:
17 U.S.C. §512 (1998).
Footnote 22:
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
Footnote 23:
17 U.S.C. §107 (1998).
Footnote 24:
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Footnote 25:
Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992); Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000).
Footnote 26:
17 U.S.C. §1201(f) (1998):
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
Footnote 27:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
U.S. Const. amend. I.
Footnote 28:
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 558 (1985).
Footnote 29:
SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 1.10[B][1] (2001)).
Footnote 30:
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 556-57 (1985).
Footnote 31:
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Footnote 32:
17 U.S.C. §107 (1998).
Footnote 33:
John R. Therien, Exorcising the Specter of a "Pay-Per-Use" Society: Toward Preserving Fair Use and the Public Domain in the Digital Age, 16 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 979, 1001 (2001).
Footnote 34:
Yochai Benkler, Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain, 74 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 354, 390-92 (1999).
Footnote 35:
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
Footnote 36:
Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998).
Footnote 37:
Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995: Hearing on S.483 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (1995) (statement of Prof. Peter Jaszi), available at 1995 WL 10524355.
Footnote 38:
Eldred v. Reno, 239 F.3d 372 (D.C. Cir. 2001), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1062 (Feb. 19, 2002).
Footnote 39:
17 U.S.C. §1201 (1998).