October 23-25, 2000
IV. Infringement - Cont'd
2. Substantial similarity
b. Literal vs. non-literal structure
2. Whelan, cited p. 666
3. Computer Associates v. Altai, p. 649
a. Abstraction

c. Golden nugget
1. HYPO:
Y produces posters from paintings, licensed by X
Z buys posters, transfers ink to canvas + has artists apply paint
Has Z infringed?
See Peker
v. Masters Collection, 96 F. Supp.2d 216
(E.D.N.Y. 2000).
b. Deep linking
1. Ticketmaster v. Microsoft settlement
2. Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com,
54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1344 (C.D. Cal. 2000) & 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 12987 (2000)
a. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 77 F. Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 1999)
b. Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 82 F. Supp.2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
c. RealNetworks v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1889 (W.D. Wash. 2000)
A. Section 1071. Background2. Four fair use factorsB. Reproduction righta. Purpose & character of useb. Nature of copyrighted work
c. Amount and substantiality used
d. Market effect
1. Sony, p. 668
2. Related issue: Digital Audio Tape (DAT)
3. Photocopying -- Texaco, p. 676
4. MP3 technology & Napstera. RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)
b. UMG Recordings v. MP3.Com, 92 F. Supp.2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
c. A & M Records v. Napster, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11862 (N.D. Cal. 2000)