FALL 2008

Copyright Law

 
Course No. 9200 703 (and 803) 801
TuW 6:30-7:55 p.m.
Room L-134
Professor Jay Dratler, Jr.
Room 231D (IP Alcove)
(330) 972-7972
dratler@uakron.edu
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008   Jay Dratler, Jr.   For permission, see CMI.
 

Assigned Reading

Week 1
Week 5
Week 8
Week 11
Week 2
Week 6
Week 9
Week 12
Week 3
Week 7
Week 10
Week 13
Week 4
Week 14


Week 1

NOTE: FOR THE FIRST WEEK ONLY, WE WILL NOT MEET ON TUESDAY BUT WILL MEET FOR THREE HOURS ON THURSDAY, FROM 1:00 P.M. TO 4:00 P.M.


Thursday, August 31:  Casebook, pages 1 - 35.

Back to Top


Week 2

Tuesday, September 4:  Casebook, pages 35 - 62.


Thursday, September 6:  Casebook, pages 62 - 81.
Back to Top


Week 3

Tuesday, September 11:  Casebook, pages 81 - 102.  Also, work through Problem, Shyster on Dog Bites, in study groups or individually, taking careful notes on each step in your analysis.


Thursday, September 13:
 Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976, § 102(b).  Casebook, pages 102 - 121.
Back to Top


Week 4

Tuesday, September 18:  Casebook, pages 121 - 144 and Notes and Questions on Patenting Computer Programs.



Thursday, September 20:  Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976 § 101 (defintions of "pictorial, graphic and sculptural works" and "useful article")  [Read each definition several times!].  Casebook, pages 144 - 164.  [How do courts determine whether or not a design's aesthetic features are "separable" from its utilitarian features?  As you read the design cases, make a note of the various suggested standards.  Which makes most sense?  Which is easiest to apply?]
Back to Top


Week 5

Tuesday, September 25:  Casebook, pages 164 - 192.  [Continue asssessing standards for protecting useful articles.] 


Thursday, September 27:  Casebook, pages 201 - 219.  [Why did Nichols and Sheldon produce opposite results?  Can you explain/distinguish the two cases in detail and on their facts?].
Back to Top


Week 6

Tuesday, October 2:  Casebook, pages 219 - 242.


Thursday, October 4:  Casebook, pages 242 - 263.  
Back to Top


Week 7

Tuesday, October 9:  Casebook, pages 263 - 283.


Thursday, October 11:  Casebook, pages 283 - 313.
Back to Top


Week 8

Tuesday, October 16:  Casebook, pages 192 - 200, 313 - 335, 592 - 603.  [The last set of pages provides textual background on the music, TV, and cable industries, with emphasis on compulsory licensing.  As you read them, consider when compulsory licensing is appropriate.  Should Congress provide compulsory licenses for peer-to-peer file-sharing systems like Grokster and KazaA?  For Google's book projects?]


Thursday, October 18:  Casebook, pages 335 - 349.  [Quality King is a difficult case illustrating a classic argument of statutory interpretation: that the opponent's view would render part of the statute superfluous.  What business circumstances led to the lawsuit?  What was the copyright owner trying to do and why?  Be sure to outline the steps in statutory interpretation argued by each side.  Which side had the better argument and why?]
Back to Top


Week 9

Tuesday,  October 23:  Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976, §§ 203, 304.  Casebook, pages 349 - 359, 529 - 542, 562 - 574.  [What purpose did the two terms of copyright under the 1909 Act serve?  Do the current termination rights under §§ 203 and 304(c) serve the same purpose?  How do the two sections differ?  What change did the 1976 Act make in a licensee's right to continue exploiting a derivative work?  To make new derivatiave works?]


Thursday,  October 25:   Casebook, pages 515 - 529.  [Eldred is an important constitutional decision.  What does it say about Congress' power over copyright law?  about Congress' power to increase the duration of copyright?  Is there any practical limit?  Is that result wise policy?  Does it accord with copyright's two main purposes?  Is there a First Amendment defense to copyright infringement?]
Back to Top


Week 10

Tuesday, October 30:  Casebook, pages 574 - 592 and Weissmann v. Freeman.  [Disputes over copyright ownership are common in general business pratice.  Can you articulate the differences among: (1) sole authorship; (2) joint authorship; (3) a derivative work; and (4) a work made for hire?  How would you advise a client on the differences and on avoiding the pitfalls they create?]


Thursday, November 1:  Casebook, pages 542 - 562.  [How do Boosey & Hawkes and Tasini differ?  Does one involve a license and the other statutory permission?  Does a copyright defendant need one if she has the other?]
Back to Top


Week 11

Tuesday, November 6:  Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976, § 107.  Casebook, pages 360 - 387.  [Are the four stautory fair-use factors the last word, or are there other considerations?  Do they explain the outcome of the cases?  Are they like elements of a tort, or must they be weighed and balanced on the scale of equity?]

Thursday, November 8:  Casebook, pages 388 - 437.  [The opinions are long, but Section 107 provides the basic analytical framework.  Make a "buzzword" outline of Section 107; then, as you read the cases, outline the subissues for each of the four statutory factors, any additional factors considered, and how the courts analyzed each.  Be sure to note how each court weighed each factor, whether for or against the plaintiff.  (As a guide for study and analysis, use the same analytical structure for cases decided under the 1909 Act, even though Section 107 was not yet in force.)]
Back to Top


Week 12

Tuesday, November 13:  Casebook, pages 452 - 461; Fonovisa v. Cherry Auction, Inc. 


Thursday, November 15:  Casebook, pages 461 - 483;  Metro-Goldwyn Studios, Ltd. v. Grokster, Inc.
Back to Top


Week 13

Tuesday, November 20:  Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976, § 1201  [Read subsections (a) through (c) and (f) twice; skim the rest].  Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. and Notes on Lexmark decision.    


Thursday, November 22:  NO CLASS:  THANKSGIVING
Back to Top


Week 14

Tuesday, November 27:  Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.; Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.

Thursday, November 29:  Problems: Liability of YouTube and Google Book Project.
Back to Top

PRACTICE EXAMINATION

Back to Top

FINAL EXAMINATION

Back to Top



Copyright Law Home Page
Course Description
Course Requirements and Policies

FALL 2007 COURSES