Russ VerSteeg 1

In March 2007, media giant Viacom brought a $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube for “brazen” and “massive” copyright infringement, claiming the Google-owned online video-sharing website made around 160,000 Viacom-owned videos available to YouTube users without permission. Considering the legal and historical context from which the litigation arose, this Article briefly reviews the dynamic relationship between technology and copyright law over the years, as well as the principal legal theories that make up Viacom's complaint and YouTube's various defenses. The Article goes on to outline the interests of each entity with a stake in the action, including the plaintiff, the defendant, the creators of the copyrighted video content, and the public at large. The Article concludes with an exploration of possible legal outcomes in the event of actual litigation and an ensuing judgment by the court.

Cite as 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 43 (2007) | Download PDF

Jon Burns 1

This Recent Development examines the implications of Doe v. SexSearch.com, a case decided by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in August 2007, on jurisprudence surrounding website immunity from liability as provided by the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Specifically, this Recent Development compares the reasoning used in SexSearch.com with that used in Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, a May 2007 case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The author asserts that the Roommates.com decision broke with the will of Congress as expressed in the Communications Decency Act and with federal court precedent, as it opened up a more narrow view of immunity under the Act. SexSearch.com is a step back towards clarity and a more equitable distribution of liability for user-supplied online content.

Cite as 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 69 (2007) | Download PDF

Erich M. Fabricius 1

In Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc v. PSKS, Inc., the Supreme Court announced a shift in the law of minimum resale price maintenance by overruling the longstanding per se prohibition of these policies. The new rule of reason standard is more permissive of these minimum resale price maintenance agreements and as a result their use is likely to increase. Increased use of minimum resale price maintenance would harm online discounters competing for customers primarily on the basis of price. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how many manufacturers will actually implement these policies, as there are both practical and economic disincentives to implementation.

Cite as 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 87 (2007) | Download PDF

Phillip A. Harris Jr. 1

Sony v. Divineo appears to sound the death knell for use of mod chips within video game systems. With a three million dollar damages claim against a mod chip distributor, it is becoming cost prohibitive to sell these chips directly to consumers. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, with its potentially crushing requirements, stifles the creativity and innovation of mod chip distributors and overlooks fair use as a defense for the use of mod chips. Fortunately, the next batch of legal forays into the world of mod chips may allow for better outcomes for mod chip distributors. With existing, valid arguments for significant noninfringing uses and lessons provided by other countries, victories in lawsuits against video game monopoly holders may not be far away.

Cite as 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 113 (2007) | Download PDF

Scott Bloebaum 1

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in In re Seagate Technology, L.L.C. modified the standard for determining whether a patent has been infringed willfully, but left intact the existing doctrine that requires willfulness to justify enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 284. This Comment presents several arguments as to why the current enhanced damages doctrine should be modified. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. on the availability of injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283 provides strong support to these arguments. Finally, the author proposes a flexible enhanced damages doctrine and compares it with a legislative solution currently being considered by Congress.

Cite as 9 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 139 (2007) | Download PDF