Talk:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 1999

Learn more about this page

Information about this edition
Edition:
Source:
Contributor(s):
Level of progress:
Notes:
Proofreaders:

The following template is used to provide information about the source of the transcript. See the {{textinfo}} documentation for guidelines.

{{textinfo
| edition      = 
| source       = 
| contributors = 
| progress     = 
| notes        = 
| proofreaders = 
}}

WARNING

THE CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT LAW IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED BUT CONTINUES TO BE MISUSED AS A HOAX TO SCARE THOSE POSTING INTERNET LINKS.

The contributory infringement holding in Intellectual Reserve first requires a holding that merely by viewing websites, individual users "cache" copies of its text and images and thereby directly infringe through reproduction. Without such a holding, Intellectual Reserve is no longer good for the point of law on contributory infringement. In Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F.Supp.2d 828 FN. 17, C.D.Cal. (Feb 17, 2006), the court stated that "local browser caching basically consists of a viewer's computer storing automatically the most recently viewed content of the websites the viewer has visited. It is an automatic process of which most users are unaware, and its use likely is "fair" under 17 U.S.C. § 107." Moreover, in Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1344 (C.D.Cal.2000) the court rejected a motion for preliminary injunction on copyright claim for deep linking, stating that "hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act whatever it may do for other claims since no copying is involved. [It] is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently." Moreover, as an Internet hoax, posters have been going around citing Intellectual Reserve and stating that knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright is contributory copyright infringement. See Halvorson, T. R. (March 15, 2000) LLRX.com. How to Start an Urban Legend: the Reporting of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.; Bendotoff, Mary Anne. (Fall 2000). University of San Francisco Law Review. Vol.31, No. 1. Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.: Fair Use, The First Amendment, and the Freedom to Link; The Internet Rights Forum. (March 2003). Forum des droits sur l'Internet: Hyperlinks: legal status, March 2003.

Start a discussion about Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 1999

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikisource the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry 1999.

Start a discussion

Add topic