Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
B-1
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 9
INTERNET LAW, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND PRIVACY
9-1A. Domain names
The court granted Gallo a summary judgment and awarded $25,000 in statutory damages. The
court enjoined the Thumanns from using the domain name “ERNESTANDJULIOGALLO.COM”
and from registering any name that contains the word “Gallo” or the words “Ernest” and “Julio” in
combination. Finally, the court ordered the Thumanns to transfer to Gallo
“ERNESTANDJULIOGALLO.COM.” The court explained that Spider Webs’ domain name “is
confusingly similar to Gallo’s registered trademark.” The ACPA lists nine factors as to whether a
domain name was registered in bad faith Concluding that Spider Webs had acted in bad faith,
the court pointed out that “Gallo has a registered trademark in the name ‘ERNEST & JULIO
9-2A. Copyrights in digital information
The court ruled that Nintendo’s lockout program included original protectable expression. The
court agreed with Atari that intermediate copying for the purpose of understanding the ideas and
processes of a copyrighted program can be a fair use, depending on the nature of the work.
The object code on the chip in Nintendo’s system could not be “observe[d], let alone
[understood],” without reverse engineering. Thus, reverse engineering is a fair use if it is limited
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 9
9-3A. Copyrights in digital information
The court concluded that Accolade had a legitimate interest in learning how to make Genesis-
compatible game cartridges and ruled that its disassembly of the Sega program was a fair use.
The court reasoned that if the only method of gaining access to the unprotected aspects of a
computer program is to disassemble the code, and the user has a legitimate interest in gaining
access, it is a fair use to do so. The court considered the four factors set out in the Copyright
Act to determine whether disassembly is a fair use. As to the first factor—the purpose and
9–4A. Copyrights in digital information
Klimecek committed a crime—in this problem, copyright infringement, or “piracy.” He was an
essential participant in the operation. If he had not bought a server, set it up, connected it to the
Internet, and paid the Internet service fee, the unauthorized dissemination of others’ copyrighted
9–5A. Copyrights in digital information
Yes, Thomas-Rasset is liable for copyright infringement. File-sharing is accomplished through
peer-to-peer (P2P) networking. When file-sharing is used to download others’ stored music files,
copyright issues arise. The issue of infringement in file-sharing has been a subject of debate
since the cases against Napster, Inc. and Grokster, Ltd., two companies that created software
used to share files in infringement of others’ copyrights. Napster operated a Web site with free
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 9 B-3
9–6A. Domain names
Yes, Austin is entitled to a transfer of the domain names. At times, by using an identical or
similar domain name, parties attempt to profit from the goodwill of a competitor or other
successful company. For example, a party might use a similar domain name to sell
pornography, offer for sale another party’s domain name, or otherwise infringe on others’
trademarks. Cybersquatting occurs when a person registers a domain name that is the same as,
or confusingly similar to, the trademark of another. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection
Act (ACPA) makes cybersquatting illegal when (1) the name is identical or confusingly similar to
the trademark of another and (2) the one registering, trafficking in, or using the domain name
