1. Legal Implications of Interconnectivity William Fisher July 4, 2002 © 2002. All rights reserved

2. Effects of Aggregations and Interconnections Benefits §Speed and convenience §Expand users’ access to: l Information l Goods l Comparative prices §Creativity/Free Speech Harms §Parasitism §Consumer confusion §Aesthetic injuries §Overload servers §Erosion of incentives to construct websites

3. Deep Linking Framing Links to illegal material Metatags Search Engines Robots IIIVIIIIIVV

4. Deep Linking Homepage advertising Web page Web page Web page Competitive Site advertising Visitor ?

5. Deep Linking – Selected Case Law §Shetland News (Scotland 1996) l Enjoin deep linking by rival news organization §Ticketmaster v. Microsoft (1991; settled 1999) l No deep links from Seattlesidewalk.com to TM §Bernstein (C.D. Cal. 1998) l No copyright offense for second-tier link to infringing photo §Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com (C.D. Cal. 2000, aff’d 2001) l Copying purely factual information privileged l Temporary reproduction of event pages excused as “fair use” l No violation of misappropriation doctrine in absence of commercial injury l Minimal “trespass to chattels” l No contract claim in absence of “click through”

6. Ticketmaster II Ticketmaster advertising Event1 Page tickets Event2 Page tickets Event3 Page tickets Tickets.com advertising Visitor Event1 page Event2 page Event4 Page tickets ? K

7. Deep Linking – Selected Case Law §Shetland News (Scotland 1996) l Enjoin deep linking by rival news organization §Ticketmaster v. Microsoft (1991; settled 1999) l No deep links from Seattlesidewalk.com to TM §Bernstein (C.D. Cal. 1998) l No copyright offense for second-tier link to infringing photo §Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com (C.D. Cal. 2000, aff’d 2001)

8. Framing – Selected Case Law §Potential claims l Trademark infringement – consumer confusion l Trademark dilution l Copyright infringement – derivative works §Very few framing disputes reach trial l The large majority of “framers” retreat when threatened with suit l E.g., Total News (SDNY 1997) §Exception: Futuredontics (CA9 1998) l Plaintiff failed to allege injury §Lesson of Ditto.com?

9. Links to Illegal Material Site #1 advertising Web page Web page Illegal Material Site #2 advertising Visitor Web page Web page Plaintiff ?

10. Links to Illegal Material– Selected Case Law §Intellectual Reserve (D. Utah 1999) l Contributory copyright infringement by encouraging visitors to make RAM copies §Reimerdes (CA2, 11/28/2001) l Providing a link to a website that, in turn, enables visitors to download copies of encryption-breaking software violates DMCA 1201(a)(2) = “trafficking” in circumvention technology l None of the DMCA safe harbors are applicable l No violation of First Amendment “content neutral”; advances “substantial government interest”

11. Metatags – Selected Case Law §Niton (D. Ma. 1998); Brookfield (CA9, 174 F.3d 1064); most of the Playboy cases l Actual confusion or l “Initial Interest” confusion §Playboy v. Welles (SDCal 1998); Bihari (SDNY, 9/2000) l No likelihood of consumer confusion l Use of TM excused by “fair use” doctrine

12. Internet as a web Web page Web page Web page User Web page Web page Web page Search Engine ? Inline link

13. Search Engines –Case Law §Kelly (CDCal 1999) l Making thumbnail copies violates §106 l But is excused by the fair use doctrine Purpose is “commercial” but “transformative” Artistic works are strongly protected against copying Entire image is copied No demonstration of economic harm Weak point

14. Search Engines –Case Law Kelly (CA9 2001) §In-line links constitute “public display” l Projection of an image l Through simultaneous transmission to many recipients §No fair-use defense Not transformative Artistic works are strongly protected against copying Entire image is copied No demonstration of economic harm

15. Internet as a web Web page Web page Web page User Web page Web page Web page Ebay 3,000,000 items 5,000,000 items Bidder’s Edge 100,000 Per day

16. Robots – Case Law §Ebay (NDCal, May 2000) l Unauthorized robotic searches constitute an intentional interference with a website’s possessory interest in its computer system l If others are permitted to engage in this activity, the result could be a “substantial impairment of the condition or value” of the system Preliminary Injunction to halt a “trespass to chattels”  Feb. 2001: Bidder’s Edge folds  June 2001: Lawsuit settled

17. Trespass Theory §Right to exclude unwanted entrants to real property §Illustrative Exceptions: l Private necessity (e.g., deviation from a public way) l Public necessity l Overflights l Anti-discrimination (places of public accommodation) – Title II l Access to employees (State v. Shack) l Protests (Pruneyard) §Cf. Sections 106, 107 of Copyright Act

18. Public-Interest Considerations in Ebay §Consumers’ access to information concerning rival sellers decreases prices and increases quality