That's All. Good Luck!
The time to ask questions has now passed. There won't be any other entries posted to the class website. If anything important is left to say, I will send it to you via e-mail.
posted at: 09:35 | path: | permanent link to this entry
If the website has trouble...
On the off-chance the class website isn't accessible before or during the exam, I have created a second copy of the site containing almost all of the materials which is accessible at http://spot.colorado.edu/~ohm/copr10. Be sure to save this URL somewhere, because if the website goes down, this blog won't be working, either.
posted at: 18:46 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Sound Recordings and Section 106 Rights
Q: I'm having some trouble with the public performance material. In Sec. 106(4) there is no sound recording listed, only in 106(6) for digital audio transmission. So if I have a cassette tape (lawfully) and play it in a stereo at the beach, this would not be infringement because "perform publically" doesn't cover this, correct? But if I played a CD, this seems to me to be a digital audio transmission so that it would be infringement, right?
A: Don't forget that the song is probably also a protected musical
work, so 106(4) still covers that. As for 106(6), we didn't talk much
about it in class, but review the definition of "digital transmission"
and "transmit" and ask yourself whether playing something through
speakers that can be heard by others that the same place applies.
posted at: 17:41 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Making Available Online = Distribution?
Q: I was a bit confused after the review session as far as whether making something available online infringes the right to distribute. I know Hotahling holds that merely making it available and offering it to the public is infringement but the Thomas case seemed to overturn that and require actual evidence of distribution to others in order to infringe? Is the online context different or still an open question?
A: Still an open question. Don't forget that Thomas is just the
opinion of a district court judge, whereas Hotaling is an appellate
posted at: 17:35 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Q: As far as the conceptual separability test of a PGS, is there any possibility you could clarify the rule? I have a list of rules from the 2nd Circuit but am unsure which ones holds.
A: Sorry, but that's as far as I can bring you. There are just a lot
of rules, and lots of examples of applications of the rules.
posted at: 17:34 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Multiple Violations of 106
Q: When doing a copyright infringement analysis and there are several potential 106 rights infringed, once one infringement is found, such as the right to reproduce, should I still analyze the other possible infringed rights, or just move on?
A: It's probably safest to analyze any 106 right you spot in the fact
pattern, even if one of them seems clearly infringed. Then again,
once you've analyzed the reproduction right, sometimes there isn't a
lot left to say about the other rights.
posted at: 17:32 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Welcome to the student question and answer blog for Professor Ohm's 2010 Copyright course. During the period leading up to the exam, I will post student questions with my answers on this page.
I am not posting every single student question. Instead, I am only
posting student questions that I believe the class, as a whole, will
benefit from hearing. Some questions are too basic to deserve
attention. Other questions are too advanced and nuanced. So don't
take it personally if your question doesn't appear here. (Do take it
personally if I don't respond to one of your questions. I might have
forgotten to get to it, so if you don't hear from me in a day or two,
please ask again.)
posted at: 05:44 | path: | permanent link to this entry