Eric Goldman Table of Internet Law Cases and Statutes

CYBERSPACE LAW

TABLE OF CASES AND STATUTES

by Eric Goldman (formerly Eric Schlachter)

http://eric_goldman.tripod.com

NOTE (8/13/04): I AM NO LONGER MAINTAINING THIS PAGE. I AM, HOWEVER, MAINTAINING SOME SECTIONS—YOU CAN FIND THEM FROM http://eric_goldman.tripod.com.

This document provides a non-comprehensive list of statutes, cases and other relevant source materials applicable to topics in cyberspace law. The last nontrivial set of additions were made July 26, 2003.

1. AGENCY LIABILITY.

Cubby v. CompuServe, 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), http://www.alw.nih.gov/Security/FIRST/papers/legal/cubby.txt.

Haybeck v. Prodigy Services Corp., 944 F. Supp. 326 (S.D.N.Y. November 12, 1996) (finding Prodigy not liable for an employee’s failure to tell a woman that he met in a Prodigy chat room that the employee had AIDS even though they engaged in unprotected sex).

Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), http://www.epic.org/free_speech/stratton_v_prodigy_1995.txt.

2. ANONYMITY/JOHN DOE CASES.

Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, § 93.1, Ga. Code § 16-9-93.1 (1996), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/statutes/ga-fraud.txt.

American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Miller (N.D. Ga. June 20, 1997), http://www.aclu.org/court/aclugavmiller.html.

America Online v. Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. (Va. Sup. Ct. Nov. 1, 2002), http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/1012761.txt.

Dendrite International v. Doe (NJ Superior Ct November 23, 2000) (refusing to order Yahoo to reveal personal information on John Does due, in part, to First Amendment concerns). Upheld on appeal to the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, July 11, 2001.

Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc. 140 F.Supp.2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001), http://eon.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/2themart.html.

Pacific Bell Internet Services v. Recording Industry Assoc. Jurisdictional ruling: 2003 WL 22862662 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2003).

Recording Industry Assoc. v. Verizon Internet Servs. First district court ruling. 240 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Second district court ruling. 257 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.D.C. 2003). DC Ct. App. Ruling: 2003 WL 22970995 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2003) (no 512(h) subpoena unless a 512(c)(3) has been sent).

Sony Music Entertainment v. Doe (SDNY July 26, 2004)

BMG Canada v. Doe, 2004 FC 288 (March 31, 2004).

3. ANTITRUST.

America Online, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (E.D. Pa. November 26, 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/cyber32.html.

America Online, Inc. v. Greatdeals.net (E.D. Va. May 4, 1999) (holding that AOL is not a common carrier and did not engage in monopolistic practices by restricting plaintiff’s spam from reaching AOL subscribers), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/aolgtnet.html.

Beverly v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8888 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (holding that NSI is immune from antitrust liability because it is acting in compliance with a clearly articulated government program through its Cooperative Agreement with NSF), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/nsibeverly.html.

Beverly v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20453 (N.D. Cal. December 30, 1998) (NSI’s suspension of a domain name does not constitute a civil conspiracy).

Image Online Design, Inc. v. Internet Assigned Number Authority (complaint only) (Cal. Superior Court filed February 27, 1997), http://www.iodesign.com/complaint.html. Case was dismissed.

Name Space Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. (2d Cir. Jan. 21, 2000) (rejecting antitrust claims based on NSI’s restrictions on TLDs).

PGP Media, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. March 16, 1999) (NSI is protected monopoly).

Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4835 (D.D.C. April 3, 1998) (NSI not subject to a Sherman Act claim for allegedly colluding with NSF because NSF is a government actor and therefore NSI benefits from NSF’s immunity from Sherman Act claims), http://www.aira.org/legal/jh3.html. On appeal, the court found that Congress authorized the fees (D.C. Cir. May 14, 1999), http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-5502a.txt.

4. CO-BRANDING/ADVERTISING AGREEMENTS.

HotJobs.com v. Digital City (Virginia March 2000) (awarding HotJobs an injunction against Digital City implementing an exclusive advertising agreement with Monster.com based on HotJobs’ exclusive ad agreement with Digital City).

5. COMMERCE CLAUSE/RESTRICTIONS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (D.N.M. June 30, 1998) (enjoining enforcement of New Mexico’s CDA-style law).

American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson (10^th Cir. 1999) (upholding the injunction against the New Mexico CDA-style law).

American Library Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 1997), http://www.aclu.org/court/nycdadec.html.

Beskind v. Easley (4^th Cir. Apr. 8, 2003)

Cyberspace Communications, Inc. v. Engler, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12843 (E.D. Mich. July 29, 1999) (striking down a state CDA-style law on both First Amendment grounds and commerce clause grounds).

Dickerson v. Texas (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2002) (striking down Texas law restricting the cross-border sales of wine).

Ferguson v. Friendfinder (Cal. Superior Court, June 7, 2000) (striking down California’s anti-spam statute B&P 17538.4), http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/files/Cal_spam_decision.pdf. Reversed on appeal, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (2001), http://www.timothywalton.com/fergusonvfriendfinders.html#asterisk.

Ford Motor Co. v. Texas Dep’t of Transportation, 106 F. Supp. 2d 905 (W.D. Tex. 2000) (restricting Ford’s ability to sell cars direct to consumers in violation of a Texas statute requiring such sales to take place through a dealer). Affirmed on appeal, 264 F.3d 493; 2001, 5^th Cir. August 27, 2001, http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/050cv0.html.

Heald v. Engler, 2003 Fed. App. 0308P (6^th Cir. Aug. 28, 2003) (restrictions on out-of-state wine sales violates DCC).

Knoll Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sherman, 1999 WL 569540 (N.D. Ill. Aug 3. 1999) (striking down Illinois’ restriction on advertisements for “controlled substances” as violating the commerce clause in part because such restriction would interfere with web-based ads).

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (D. Mass. Jan. 24, 2000) (state tobacco advertising restrictions as applied to the Internet violate the commerce clause).

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Spitzer (SDNY Nov. 2000) (TRO against laws restricting cigarette shipments to NY based on discrimination against out-of-staters). Injunction issued June 8, 2001.

Washington v. Heckel (Wash. Superior Ct. March 10, 2000) (striking down Washington’s anti-spam statute as violating the commerce clause). Reversed on appeal by the WA. Supreme Court, June 7, 2001, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2001_sc/69416-8&invol=3.

6. COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (CFAA).

18 U.S.C. §1030, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html.

America Online, Inc. v. Christian Brothers (SDNY December 9, 2000) (finding that sending spam caused violations of both (a)(5) an (a)(5)(C)), http://www.nylj.com/links/aol.html.

America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, 1998 US Dist. LEXIS 20144 (finding a spammer violated the CFAA).

America Online, Inc. v. National Health Care Discount, Inc. 2000 WL 1724884 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 25, 2000) (sending unwanted email is “access” for purposes of CFAA and large volume of email impairs the availability of a computer system; also finding that scraping email addresses could violate (a)(2)(C)).

Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2001), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3498.

EF Cultural Travel v. Explorica, 274 F.3d 577 (1^st Cir. Dec. 17, 2001) (scraping pricing information violated CFAA (a)(4)), http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2000.01A.

EF Cultural Travel v. Zefer Corp. (1^st Cir. Jan. 28, 2003) (interpreting “exceeding authorization” as requiring an explicit anti-robot notice on a webpage or a clearly labeled link, or through implied language that was more than a copyright notice), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/012001.html.

Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie Inc., 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 1998) (a default judgment finding, among other things, that bounced back emails caused by spammers were a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/hotmailvvansmoneypie.htm.

IMS Inquiry Management Systems v. Berkshire Information Systems, 2004 WL 345556 (SNDY Feb. 23, 2004).

In re Intuit Privacy Litigation, 2001 WL 370081 (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2001) (dismissing a claim that placing cookies violates the CFAA).

Moulton v. VC3, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19916 (N.D. Ga. November 7, 2000). http://pub.bna.com/eclr/00434.htm.

Nexans Wires SA v. Sark USA Inc (SDNY May 25, 2004) (excluding some remediation activities from the definition of “loss”).

Register.com v. Verio (SDNY Dec. 8, 2000) (access by search robots could give rise to (a)(5)(C) and (a)(2) violation), http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm.

Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. October 26, 2000).

U.S. v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/US_v_Morris2.html.

U.S. v. Riggs, 743 F. Supp. 556 (N.D. Ill. 1990), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/US_v_Riggs.html.

7. CONSUMER PROTECTION.

Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in Respect of Distance Contracts, http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg24/cad/dir1en.html.

California Business & Professions Code §17538 (amended September 1996), http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_3301-3350/ab_3320_bill_960923_chaptered.html.

California AB 583 (chaptered Sept. 21, 1999) (authorizing online escrow agents).

California Civil Code §1789 (the “Electronic Commerce Act of 1984”).

California Business & Professions Code §17538.35 (requiring email service providers to give 30 days notice prior to permanently terminating email accounts; this right is not waivable by contract).

Cease and Desist Order issued by Idaho Department of Finance against European Union Bank, May 29, 1997 (prohibiting the Internet-based bank from soliciting deposits from Idaho residents). See http://www.state.id.us/finance/pr/eurobank.htm.

Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. (S. D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2002) (airline website not obligated under ADA to build website readable by visually impaired users), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts2002/accessnow_southwest/20021018.asp.

Department of Transportation v. Hotwire (DOT, Oct. 4, 2002) ($50,000 fine for deceptive ads based on advertisements that touted low fares that may not have been available).

Dickerson v. Texas (S.D. Tex. July 17, 2002) (striking down Texas law restricting the cross-border sales of wine).

Federal Trade Commission v. FutureNet Online, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 1998) (consent order regarding online pyramid scheme).

Federal Trade Commission v. Hill (June 17, 2004) (consent order against phishing).

Federal Trade Commision v. Verity International (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2001) (penalizing Internet pornographers for fraudulent billing practices).

Hinther v. Electronic Arts, Inc. (Cal. Superior Ct. September 25, 1998) (denying class certification for breach of contract/warranty claims against Ultima Online).

Howard v. America Online, Inc. (C.D. Cal. May 14, 1998) (rejecting plaintiff’s attempts to establish a RICO claim against AOL for various advertising claims and service delivery issues; also ruling that AOL was not a “common carrier” under FCC regulations), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlpriv/howard.html.

Missouri v. Beer Nuts Ltd. (Mo. Cir. Ct. March 31, 1999) (restricting an out-of-state company’s ability to sell alcohol in Missouri).

Noah v. AOL Time Warner, 261 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va. May 15, 2003) (AOL chat room is not a place of public accommodation), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/noahvaol.htm.

Rudder v. Fedtrust Liquidations (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2004) (inaccurate eBay listing could give rise to fraud).

Schwab v. America Online, Inc. (Ill. Cir. Ct. February 19, 1998) (approving a class action settlement arising out of AOL’s service outages).

Taucher v. Born (D.D.C. June 21, 1999), http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990713/971711a.htm.

Wine and Spirits Wholesalers v. Net Contents, 10 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Mass. July 23, 1998) (holding that a trade association lacks standing to bring a private action to enforce wine-related statutes against an Internet website selling wine into the state).

8. CONTRACT.

Electronic Signatures in Global & National Commerce Act, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:s761enr.txt.pdf.

Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Dec. 1999 draft), http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/uecicta/eta1299.htm.

America Online, Inc. v. Booker, 781 So. 2d 423 (Fla. App. 2001).

Barnett v. Network Solutions, 38 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2001) (upholding the forum selection clause in NSI’s user agreement, even though the user had to scroll to see the clause).

Begraft v. eBay (N.J. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2003), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/begraftvebay.pdf (upholding eBay’s user agreement).

Caspi v. Microsoft Network LLC, 732 A.2d 528 (N.J. Superior Ct. July 2, 1999) (upholding the forum selection clause in MSN’s clickthrough user agreement), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/caspi.html.

Celmins v. America Online, 738 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 19, 1999) (enforcing AOL’s forum selection clause in its user agreement).

Comb v. PayPal, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16364 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2002) (rejecting a motion to compel arbitration because the user agreement was unconscionable), http://pub.bna.com/eclr/021227.htm.

Decker v. Circus Circus Hotel, 49 F. Supp. 2d 743 (D. N.J. May 12, 1999) (dismissing jurisdiction based on Internet order for a hotel room given forum selection language on the site).

DiLorenzo v. America Online (N.Y. Supreme Ct. January 22, 1999), (upholding AOL’s choice of forum clause in its terms of service), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlother/dilorenzo.html.

Evans v. Matlock (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2002) (eBay user agreement arbitration clause does not apply to intra-user disputes), http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tca/PDF/024/EvansD.pdf.

Forrest v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (D.C. App. Ct. Aug. 29, 2002) (upholding arbitration clause in DSL service clickthrough agreement that was in a scroll box), http://www.dcbar.org/dcca/pdf/01-cv-1101.pdf.

Groff v. America Online, Inc., 1998 R.I. Super. LEXIS 46 (Super. Ct. R.I. May 27, 1998) (upholding AOL’s forum selection clause), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlother/groff.html.

Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie Inc., 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 1998) (a default judgment finding, among other things, that spammers breached Hotmail’s clickthrough agreement, that a violation of the clickthrough agreement was trespass, and that bogus consent to a clickthrough agreement was fraud/misrepresentation), http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/hotmailvvansmoneypie.htm.

Hughes v. McMenamon, 204 F. Supp. 2d 178 (D. Mass. May 28, 2002) (dismissing AOL from case based on contract).

I. Lan Sys., Inc. v. Netscout Serv. Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 2002)

Jessup-Morgan v. AOL, 20 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (E.D. Mich. July 23, 1998) (finding that a user had breached AOL’s Member Agreement by sending a false message to USENET), http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dlpriv/jessup.html.

Kilgallan v. Network Solutions, 99 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D. Mass. 2000).

Koch v. America Online, 139 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Md. 2000).

Liekschke v. RealNetworks, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1683 (N.D. Ill. February 10, 2000) (directing the lawsuit to arbitration based on the clause in RealNetworks’ user agreement).

Lim v. dotTV Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. June 24, 2002) (disputes over whether dotTV’s way of auctioning golf.tv was a binding contract).

Mendoza v. America Online (Cal. Superior Ct. September 25, 2000) (rejecting AOL’s venue clause in its member agreement as unfair). Upheld on appeal: America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (Mendoza), 90 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. Ct. June 21, 2001), http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/90/1.html

Mudd-Lyman Sales and Service Corp. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2002) (proper contract formation through shrinkwrap agreement and bootscreen), http://www.sfl-legal.com/cases%202003/Mudd-Lyman%20v.%20UPS.htm.

Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc. (Cal. App. Ct. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone’s forum selection clause, even if the user agreement was formed only through a hyperlinked contract with the language “by using the site or materials, you agree…”), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B162210.PDF.

Oppedahl & Larson v. Network Solutions, Inc. (D. Colo. April 16, 1998) (deeming the application of NSI’s registration contract in Oppedahl’s circumstance a question of fact), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/oppensi.html.

Pollstar v. Gigmania (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2000) (contract action based on non mandatory T&Cs survive 12b6 motion).

Ploharski v. eBay (N.D. Ga. August 1, 2000) (upholding the forum selection clause in eBay’s user agreement).

In re. RealNetworks Privacy Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6584 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2000) (clickthrough agreement with arbitration sufficient to dismiss class action request).

Register.com v. Verio, 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (SDNY Dec. 8, 2000) (terms of use on search submission page formed contract), http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm.

Spera v. America Online, Inc. (N.Y. Supreme Court, January 27, 1998) (upholding the enforceability of a forum selection clause in AOL’s clickthrough terms of service).

Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 150 F.Supp.2d 585 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2001) (non-mandatory clickthrough not a binding contract), http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF. Affirmed on appeal, 2002 WL 31166784 (2d Cir. Oct. 1, 2002), http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/test3/01-7860.opn.html.

Ticketmaster, Inc. v. Tickets.com, 2000 WL 1887522 (C.D. Cal. August 10, 2000) (contract terms linked to from the bottom of the page are not necessarily binding on people who access the page), http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/ticketmaster.htm. Ruling denying Tickets.com summary judgment on the contract claim, March 6, 2003, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483, http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/ticketmastermarch72003.htm.

Thompson v. Handa-Lopez, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 738 (N.D. Tex. March 25, 1998) (declining to give effect to an express but “inconspicuous” clause in the user agreement requiring arbitration in the defendant’s home court).

Williams v. America Online, 2001 WL 135825 (Middlesex Superior Ct. February 8, 2001) (refusing to enforce AOL’s forum selection clause in its user agreement because it was possible to download the software without agreeing to it), http://www.socialaw.com/superior/000962.html.

Zurakov v. Register.com (NY Appellate Division April 22, 2003) (discussing what a domain name registrant expected based on their contract), http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/slips/13230.htm.

Also relevant:

Bishoff v. DirectTV Inc., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (CD Cal. 2002) (upholding satellite TV provider’s customer agreement).

Boomer v. AT&T Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10679 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2002) (refusing to grant motion to compel arbitration based on service agreement). Reversed on appeal, 309 F.3d 404 (7^th Cir. Oct. 3, 2002).

Brower v. Gateway 2000, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Appellate Division, August 13, 1998), http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?test/ht-docs/ny.archive.html/98/08/081798dd.html.

Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997), http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/jan97/96-3294.html.

Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (D. Kansas, June 15, 2000) (rejecting the enforceability of shrinkwraps), http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/opinions/99-2499-26.html.

Levy v. Gateway 2000, Inc. 1997 WL 823611 (NY Supreme Ct. August 12, 1997) (enforcing the documents sent with the package).

Licitra v. Gateway, Inc., 734 N.Y.S.2d 389 (NY Civil Court, October 2001) (small claims action trumps arbitration clause in user agreement).

M.A. Mortensen Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 970 P.2d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 1999) (upholding the enforceability of a shrinkwrap agreement included on the envelope inside the box), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/timber.html.

Mattingly v. Hughes Elecs. Corp., 2002 WL 3144472 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 4, 2002) (amendment to customer agreement failed).

ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 89 F.3d 1257 (7th Cir. 1996), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/procd.html.

Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Superior Ct. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside the packaging when there was a refund opportunity).

Storm Impact Inc. v. Software of the Month Club, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11789 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 1998) (shareware license agreement contained valid restrictions on redistribution).

Ting v. AT&T, 182 F. Supp. 902 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2002) (striking down an arbitration clause in a service agreement as unconscionable).

Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing the contract contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).

9. COPYRIGHT.

17 U.S.C. §101 et seq., http://fatty.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html.

In particular, see 17 U.S.C. §512 (added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/z?cp105:hr796:.

A. Civil.

321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2004) (321’s software violates 1201).

A & M Records v. Internet Site Known as Fresh Kutz (S.D. Cal. June 10, 1997) (TRO), http://www.bna.com/e-law/docs/amkutz.html.

Adam.com v. Drkoop.com (N.D. Georgia settled April 2000) (settling a claim over Drkoop.com’s continued use of a medical encyclopedia after a license agreement expired).

Bernstein v. J.C. Penney (C.D. Cal. September 1998) (no copyright liability for a website linking to an allegedly photograph which was three links away).

Bird v. Parsons (6^th Cir. May 21, 2002) (no copyright in single word used as domain name), http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/02a0177p.html.

Creative Labs, Inc. v. Cyrix Corp., (N.D. Cal. May 7, 1997) (awarding an injunction against the websites distributing Creative Lab’s copyrighted applets based on the likelihood of such behavior being both direct and contributory infringement), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/cyrix.html.

DVD-CCA v. McLaughlin, 2000 WL 48512 (Cal. Superior 2000), http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/Video/DVDCCA_case/20000120-pi-order.html

Edelman v. N2H2 Inc. (D. Mass. Apr. 7, 2003) (no declaratory judgment for researcher planning to reverse engineer censorware block list), http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/edelman-v-n2h2/order-040703.pdf.

Expert Pages v. Universal Networks, Inc. (N.D. Cal. May 2, 1997) (TRO), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/expert2.html.

Frank Music Corp. v. CompuServe (S.D.N.Y, settled October 25, 1995). This was a class action against CompuServe for distributing MIDI files. This case settled with CompuServe paying $568,000. The settlement agreement is at http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/cyberlaw/compuserve2.html.

IMS Inquiry Management Systems v. Berkshire Information Systems, 2004 WL 345556 (SNDY Feb. 23, 2004) (using password to access copyrighted works not circumvention).

Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry (D. Utah 1999) (browsing can constitute infringement), http://www.utlm.org/images/courtcase.

Kelly v. Arriba Software Corp., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 1999) (a search engine scraping photos and redisplaying thumbnail versions was fair use and didn’t violate requirements to display copyright management information under 1202), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/kelly_v_arriba.html. On Feb. 6, 2002, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that thumbnails were fair use but held that in-line linking and framing was not. 280 F.3d 934 (2002). Then, on July 7, 2003, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its 2002 ruling and issued a new one that removed all discussion about the in=line linking and framing, saying that the plaintiff had never moved for summary judgment on the issue. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E22982657C96BE188256D5C00518BF5/$file/0055521oop.pdf?openelement.

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 1999) (rejecting use of full text articles was fair use), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/19991108.htm.

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2000), http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/20000731ord.asp.

Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2000), http://www.freerepublic.com/judgment.html (final judgment).

Lowry’s Reports v. Legg Mason (D. Md. July 10, 2003) (internal redistribution of copyrighted email reports infringes).

Marobie-FL, Inc. v. National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, 2000 WL 1053957 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2000)

Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (making available a videotape for downloading which depicts two people having sex could be copyright infringement; judge awards an injunction against posting the videotape in total or even posting “small portions” or still images).

Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online, 98 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D. Mass. March 28, 2000) (injunction against distributing cphack), http://www.politechbot.com/cyberpatrol/final-injunction.html. Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online (1^st Cir. Sept. 27, 2000) (a technical ruling regarding the standing of nonparties to intervene).

MyWebGrocer v. Hometown Info. (2d Cir. July 13, 2004) (online grocery product description compilation may be copyrightable)

Paramount Pictures v. 321 Studios (SDNY March 3, 2004) (DeCSS violates 1201).

Pearl Investments v. Standard I/O, 257 F. Supp. 2d 326 (D. Maine Apr. 2, 2003). In subsequent proceeding, the district court upheld the jury verdict that there was no circumvention (D. Maine April 20, 2004).

Phillips v. Kidsoft LLC, 52 USPQ2d 1102 (D. Md. 1999) (infringing copies on website).

RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 WL 127311 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2000) (finding violations of 1201 and finding that a plug-in impermissibly modifies the user interface of Real’s software, creating a derivative work), http://www.streambox.com/RNvsSB/ruling.htm.

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services (N.D. Cal. September 22, 1995), http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/CoS_v_the_Net/whyte_cos_v_erlich_092295.ruling.

Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.Net, 901 F. Supp. 1519 (D. Colo. September 15, 1995), http://www.Loundy.com/CASES/RTC_v_FACTnet.html.

Religious Technology Center v. Lerma (E.D. Va. August 30, 1995), http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/CoS_v_the_Net/brinkema_rtc_washpost_083095.ruling. Subsequent ruling November 28, 1995, http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Scientology_cases/brinkema_rtc_washpost_112895.opinion. Final ruling October 4, 1996, http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/lerma.html.

Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (D. Hawaii Apr. 29, 2003) (MPAA has sufficient good faith basis to submit take down notice even if it does no investigation), http://63.104.208.130/webdoc.nsf/Files/250b/$file/250b.pdf.

Scanlon v. Kessler, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10201 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 1998) (a nonprofit group putting copyrighted photos taken by a group member on the group’s website was copyright infringement).

Schlessinger v. Internet Entertainment Group (C.D. Cal. November 2, 1998) (upholding the right of IEG to display photos of Dr. Laura, since she did not own the copyrights).

Storm Impact Inc. v. Software of the Month Club, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11789 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 1998) (redistribution of shareware was copyright infringement). See also 1998 US Dist. LEXIS 12060.

Ticketmaster, Inc. v. Tickets.com (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2000), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/ticketmaster.html. Denial of preliminary injunction on August 10, 2000; see http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/ticketmaster.htm (scraping to remove factual information could be copyright infringement but may be fair use). Granting Tickets.com’s motion for summary judgment, March 6, 2003, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483, http://eric_goldman.tripod.com/caselaw/ticketmastermarch72003.htm.

Universal City Studios v. Reimderdes (S.D.N.Y. January 20, 2000) (preliminary injunction), http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaaa-3-pi-htm. Opinion supporting the preliminary injunction, February 2, 2000, http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0202-mo.html. Consent judgment against Kazan dismissing him from the case based on his representation that they were not involved in DeCSS, March 17, 2000, http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-rk.htm. Preliminary injunction grant: 82 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (granting preliminary injunction), http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000202_ny_memorandum_order.html. Finding a violation of 17 USC 1201(a)(2), 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. Aug 17, 2000), http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0817-decision.pdf. Amended final judgment: 111 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2000). Affirmed as Universal City Studios v. Corley (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2001), http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/academics/courses/is235/f01/ reimerdes_nov28_2001.pdf.

In re. Verizon Internet Services Inc. (D.C. D.C. Jan. 21, 2003 and Apr. 24, 2003) (ordering Verizon to comply with 512(h) for its Internet access subscribers).

Video Pipeline, Inc. v Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. (D.N.J. April 2002) (creating and streaming video clips is copyright infringement), http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/fed/html/ca00-5236-1.html.

WebSideStory v. WebTrends (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1999) (TRO from launching competitive service that allegedly ripped off too much).

Cyboza v. NeoJapan, Inc. (Tokyo District Court June 13, 2001) (web page encoded in HTML is copyrightable).

Pacific Internet v. Catcha.com (Singapore High Court August 2000) (case involving scraping and linking of factual-type data).

The Shetland Times Ltd. v. Wills (Court of Sessions, Edinburgh, October 24, 1996), http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/opinion.html. Settled on November 11, 1997; see http://www.shetland-times.co.uk/st/daily/dispute.htm.

B. Criminal.

No Electronic Theft Act, Public Law 105-147 [H.R. 2265], enacted December 16, 1997 (amending Section 506(a) of the Copyright Act to permit criminal liability even in the absence of private financial gain if there is willful infringement of copyrighted works with an aggregate retail value of more than $1,000 in any 180 day period), http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~smikes/property/net/bill.html.

Ohio v. Perry, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 453 (Ct. App. Ohio February 12, 1997) (finding that a state law action for criminal use of property for placing stolen computer software onto a BBS is preempted by federal copyright law), http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/perry.html. Affirmed at 697 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio Supreme Court, August 19, 1998), http://www.sconet.ohio.gov/ftp/opinions/1998/970628.rtf.

U.S. v. Elcom (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2002) (denying motion to dismiss indictment under 1201(b)), http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=2049,

U.S. v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/lamacchi.txt.

10. DEFAMATION.

Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. April 22, 1998), http://www.ljx.com/LJXfiles/drudge/drudgedecision.html. Case ultimately dismissed in Drudge’s favor.

DeNigris v. Medphone (settled).

Firth v. New York (NY Ct. Claims, March 8, 2000) (single publication rule applies to web publishing). Affirmed 747 N.Y.S.2d 69 (2002).

Global Telemedia Int’l v. Doe (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2001) (rants about a company on a message board were opinions and thus not defamatory).

Hall v. Earthlink, 2004 WL 22990064 (SDNY Dec. 19, 2003) (dismissing liability for labeling an email accountholder a spammer).

Hammer v. Trendl, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 623 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2003) (book review on Amazon.com was statement of opinion and thus not defamatory).

It’s in the Cards, Inc. v. Fuschetto, 535 N.W.2d 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995), http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/in-cards.txt.

Mathis v. Cannon, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 1071 (Ga. Sup. Ct. Nov. 25, 2002) (reaching an opposite result to It’s in the Cards, requiring a retraction demand for an Internet posting prior to awarding punitive damages).

Mayflower Transit LLC v. Prince (D. N.J. May 2004) (gripe site).

McCarthy v. McCahan (San Francisco Superior Court 1998) (a California small claims court suit alleging that a mail list posting was defamatory; reversing a $5,000 award by the small claims court, the Superior Court, on appeal, found that the posting was not defamatory).

National Technical Systems v. Schoneman (Cal. App. Ct. Feb. 5, 2004) (anti-SLAPP suit over message board posting by critic).

Nicosia v. De Rooy (N.D. Cal. July 1999) (potentially defamatory statements on the web need to be evaluated in light that web readers may be less likely to believe things they read on the web).

Rindos v. Hardwick, no. 1994 of 1993 (W. Austrl. Sup. Ct. March 31, 1994), http://www.law.auckland.ac.nz/cases/Rindos.html.

Sheehan v. King County (W.D. Wash., July 17, 1998) (no preliminary injunction based on allegedly defamatory website).

Suarez v. Meeks (settled).

Traditional Cat Assoc. v. Gilbreath (Cal. Ct. App. May 6, 2004) (single-publication rule bars claim over web posting).

Tzougrakis v. Cyvelliance, Inc., 2001 US Dist. LEXIS 6680 (SDNY May 21, 2001) (no defamation for press release issued in accordance with sound journalistic practices).

Van Buskirk v. New York Times Co. (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2003) (dismissing a claim over an allegedly defamatory article on the Internet based on the single publication rule).

Wagner v. Miskin, 2003 N.D. 69 (N.D. Sup. Ct. May 6, 2003) ($3M judgment based on defamatory Internet posting by student against professor), http://www.court.state.nd.us/COURT/OPINIONS/20020200.htm.

Zelinka v. Americare Healthscan, 763 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. Ct. App. January 26, 2000) (holding that a Florida lawsuit requiring pre-suit demands for correction/retraction did not limit suit against an individual who contributed to a Yahoo message board).

Also relevant:

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=472&page=749.

Computer XPress, Inc. v. Jackson (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2001) (litigation over message board postings violated anti-SLAPP law), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E027841.PDF.

11. DERIVATIVE LIABILITY.

A. General.