|
|
  |
VOLUME TWENTY-ONE, NUMBER 1 -- 2000TABLE OF CONTENTSARTICLES COPYRIGHT PREEMPTION: IS THIS THE END OF DESNY V. WILDER? For nearly 50 years, California courts have afforded protection for the disclosure of creative “ideas” on a contract theory. In several landmark decisions between 1950 and 1956, the California Supreme Court held the disclosure of ideas under certain circumstances can result in the formation of an implied-in-fact contract under which the recipient is bound not to use or disclose the ideas without appropriate credit and compensation. The appellate courts in California, and elsewhere, have routinely followed this legal principle for decades providing important protection against theft of ideas. Now, the continued viability of this important part of California intellectual property law is under severe attack by those who claim that contract theories are preempted by the Copyright Act of 1976. The preemption movement has gained momentum during the past three years to the point that, in the absence of any ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court, the intellectual property bar is divided on the issue and the trial courts are reaching inconsistent decisions. This Article traces the history of idea submission protection in California, the arguments for and against federal preemption, and concludes that contract theories should not be preempted because they are qualitatively different from the rights protected by copyright. UMG RECORDINGS, INC. V. MP3.COM, INC.: SIGNALING THE NEED FOR A DEEPER ANALYSIS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF DIGITAL RECORDINGS The advent of the Internet and digital distribution of music has revolutionized the methods for copying music. Unlike previous technologies, digital music files can be copied indefinitely with no decay in sound quality and disseminated around the world via the Internet. In response to this increasing problem, on January 21, 2000, Universal Music Group, EMI, Warner Brothers, BMG and Sony, under the umbrella of the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”), filed suit against MP3.com for violating the right of reproduction in the sound recordings held by producers through its My.MP3.com service. Although MP3.com presented several affirmative defenses, partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the RIAA in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. This Article provides a deeper analysis of the potential copyright liability of MP3.com for their My.MP3.com service. It explores the fair use exception, additional theories of liability against MP3.com based on contributory and vicarious infringement, and the potential implications of the Audio Home Recording Act. It discusses the ways in which the My.MP3.com service may infringe on rights expressly granted by the Copyright Act. Finally, it concludes that future music-sharing programs must be modified in a way that conforms to current copyright laws in order to ensure copyright owners proper protection for their creations. NOTES & COMMENTS TASINI V. NEW YORK TIMES: OWNERSHIP OF ELECTRONIC COPYRIGHTS RIGHTFULLY RETURNED TO AUTHORS Traditionally, when a freelance author received payment for a publication in a print source, the author completely relinquished the copyright in the article. Such an agreement resulted in the publication and reproduction of the author's work in electronic databases and print sources. However, after Tasini v. New York Times Co., a freelance author no longer automatically transfers the electronic copyrights in an article to a publication unless a written contract specifies additional compensation or expressly consents to electronic publication. This Note highlights the continuing struggle between freelance writers and publishers concerning compensation for electronic publication. It concurs with the Second Circuit’s reversal of Tasini and discusses its impact on the media industry. It agrees with the holding that § 201(c) of the Copyright Act does not permit publishers to include works in electronic databases without the express permission of the author. However, this Note concludes that while the Second Circuit’s decision offers greater protection to authors in the age of electronic media, the battle between publishers and authors over electronic rights is not yet over. Ebay and other Internet auction sites are hotbeds for unauthorized sales of movie trailers and copyrighted films not yet released on video. In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) in an attempt to ameliorate copyright infringement problems on the Internet, and to exempt on-line service providers (“OSPs”) from liability. These exemptions, for which on-line auction sites seek qualification, take the form of safe harbors. This Comment argues that because Internet auction sites, like ebay, have not complied with the mandates of the safe harbors, they can be held liable through indirect claims of vicarious or contributory copyright infringement. It concludes that until the DMCA is amended to encourage OSPs to monitor their sites for infringement, eBay runs the risk of being held accountable for its users infringement. Until recently, the granting of patents for business methods was precluded both under judicial authority and Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") operating procedure. In 1998, however, the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v Signature Financial Group, Inc. revolutionized the classes of statutory patentable subject matter by eliminating the business methods exception. As a result, applications for Internet business method patents have flooded the PTO, causing a crisis in examination procedure. This crisis has led to the granting of patents of questionable validity. Many of these patents potentially fail to meet the statutory requirements of novelty, nonobviousness and usefulness, and widespread litigation has ensued, inundating the courts and prompting Congress to take legislative action through passage of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. Whether this legislation to reform PTO examination practices will improve the quality of Internet business method patents is contentious—Internet innovators like Amazon.com founder, Jeff Bezos, and members of Congress, continue to offer alternate solutions to stem the tide of litigation over Internet business methods patents. Once such alternative is the Business Methods Patent Improvement Act of 2000, whose sponsors assert Internet business methods stifle rather than promote innovation. This Comment examines the impact of the State Street decision, and the granting of business methods patents by the PTO. It ultimately suggests the best way to accommodate this evolution in patent law is to craft appropriate legislation to remedy the existing deficiencies in PTO examination procedure. |
||
 |