COMM 466-2

Card Set Information

COMM 466-2
2012-10-11 01:27:23
COMM 466

COMM 466-2
Show Answers:

  1. ALA v. Pataki (Background)
    ALA charged Pataki (New York governer) that the New York act (banning material that may be harmful to minors) to be in violation of the Commerce Clause as well as the first amendment.
  2. ALA v. Pataki (Issue)
    Dormant CC says that it can't violate interstate commerce.

    Information goes through packet switching which leads it through multiple states therefore it is in violation of the DCC
  3. (DCC) Any state law which effects commerce must be:
    • 1. rationally related to a state concern
    • 2. the benefits of state interest must outweigh the burder on the interstate commerce
    • 3. Internet must be regulated nationally
  4. ALA v. Pataki: what was the holding?
    • New York's law be stricken as a violation of the CC.
    • It's inconsistent regulate, imposes law on other states (packet switching), local benefits don't outweigh burden on interstate commerce.
  5. Washington v. Heckel (Issue)
    • State charges Heckel w. spamming people w. fake subject lines. Heckel says that the act creates inconsistency and regulates conduct outside of Washington.
    • Issue: does this act unconstiutionally burden interstate commerce?
  6. How does Heckel differ from Pataki?
    • Instead of being confined to emails (heckel), it is also applicable to website creations.
    • ex. a man could be charged who made a website and ca and then if a minor viewed it in NY
  7. Washington v. Heckel (holding)
    Supreme court of washington holds that the act does not violate the dormant commerce clause.
  8. The issues of Ashcroft v. ACLU (Supreme Court after first ruling)
    • 1. is COPA's reliance on the 'community standard' infirm?
    • 2. COPA reliance on the community standard has the potential to abide by the most puritan standards, is it then infringing upon the first amendment?
  9. Ashcroft v. ACLU (holding)
    While it was acknowledged that COPA incorporates varying community standards that pose a burden to Internet speech, this does not suffice by itself to prohibit the Act.
  10. Ashcroft v. ACLU (o'connor)
    • there should be a national standard regulation of
    • Internet obscenity
    • Uses Miller v. california to show national standard is possible
    • concurs w. thomas that it cannot be deemed overbroad solely on the basis of diff community standards
  11. Ashcroft v. ACLU (thomas)
    • publishers shouldn't use internet if they don't want everyone to see content
    • Believes this will lead to inconsistent rulings
    • Cannot be deemed unconstiutional solely on the basis of community standards.
  12. Ashcroft v. ACLU (kennedy)
    Says it's problematic, but we need more information before you rule it unconstitutional.
  13. Calder v. Jones (background)
    • Calder (FL) is national enquirers president and editor
    • Jones (CA)--actress charging calder for libel.
  14. Product of the Calder v. Jones case?
    • Effects Test:
    • Where are the effects felt?
  15. Calder v. Jones (holding and rational)
    • Calder must be tried in CA.
    • The damage was done in CA where Jones worked and lived, and where the National Enquirer has the largest circu. in the states. Calder was 'targeted'.
  16. Cable News Network v.
    US has in rem jurisdiction because the domain name was registered in VA.
  17. GlobalSantaFe Corp. v. (issue)
    • The court was trying to decide if it had jurisdiction in the case because Hangang resided in South Korea but Verisign and the GlobalSantefe Corporation were located in America.
    • (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act)
  18. Globalsantefe (holding and rational)
    • US court decided they did have jurisdiction in the
    • case and they ordered Verisign to put a freeze on the case.
    • The US Court established that it had jurisdiction because the orginal case was filed in the United States and the top-level domain name company as well as the trademark holder resided in the US.
  19. Sony v. Universal Studios
    Is BetaMax capable of commercially significant non-infringing uses?
  20. Sony v. Universal
    • District Court of CA denies Universal
    • Court of Appeals holds Sony liable for infringement
    • Supreme court decides 5 to 4 that Sony is not cont liable showing the item is capable of substantial non-infringing uses
    • J. Blackmun says it's too simple to reduce it to that.
  21. The rational for Sony v. Universal
    • Sony BetaMax is capable of sub non infring use
    • time-shifting as fair use
    • authorized and unauthorized is ok
    • if sony is a contrib infringer, then americans would be direct infringers
  22. 4 fair use factors
    • 1. Purpose
    • 2. Nature
    • 3. Amount
    • 4. Market
  23. RealNetworks v. Streambox
    DMCA--Anticircumvention Provision
  24. What's the difference between exceptionalist and nonexceptionalist
    • exceptionalist: The old laws won't work for internet
    • nonexceptionalist: the internet is the same thing as the old stuff. So, the old laws will work.
  25. Exceptionalists
    Post, Johnson, Lessig
  26. Unexceptionalists
    Easterbrook, Goldsmith
  27. DMCA on anticircumvention (3 criteria)
    • 1. primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing a tech measure that protects copyright of owner
    • 2. limited commercially significant purpose other than to circumvent
    • 3. marketed for circumvention
  28. RealNetworks v. Streambox
    Court found Streambox to be in violation of the first to criteria in the anticircumvention act.
  29. MGM v. Grokster (rational)
    Inducement. They clearly were infringing on copyrights w/ knowledge and with profit benefits.
  30. MGM v. Grokster--Ginsburg
    hypothetically, if Sony had been applicable to the case, it still would have fallen short because there is no evidence that shows they use the technology for substantial noninfringement purposes
  31. MGM v. Grokster--Breyer
    Ginsburg has it wrong.  Sony ruled the potentiality of substantial noninfringement purpose.  This technology is capable of noninfringement services.
  32. Contributory Liability
    • Material to contribute
    • Knowledge
  33. Vicarious Liability
    • Supervision
    • Financial Benefit