Page 351 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
In February 2001 the Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. However, it prevented the
closure of the Napster service by remitting the injunction to the trial judge to be drafted in
narrower terms. The Court of Appeals held that the injunction must only prevent the
exchange of music files whose owners notified Napster of copyright infringement. In August
2001 the RIAA applied to the court for an order for summary judgment against Napster on
the issue of liability.

MPAA v 2600
In 2000, the MPAA brought proceedings against an Internet ‘hacker’ magazine called 2600
for breach of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. The magazine posted a
software code known as DeCSS on its web site which allowed users to bypass the anti-
copying features on DVD discs. The MPAA alleged the code was used to illegally copy and
distribute copyrighted films on the Internet. The magazine claimed its conduct should be
excused under an exemption in the DMCA for ‘fair use’ which allows people to make copies
for personal use without the permission of the author and claimed the anti-circumvention
provisions of the DMCA violated its right to free speech under the First Amendment.
However, the Federal Court issued a preliminary injunction in January 2000 preventing the
magazine from publishing the DeCSS code on the basis that it promoted copyright theft.

Although the magazine complied with the injunction by removing DeCSS from its web site,
it created links to other web sites that posted the code. The MPAA returned to court. In
August 2000 the injunction was expanded to prohibit the links and a final order and
permanent injunction was granted (Universal City Studios Inc v Reimerdes (2000)).

In May 2001, with the support of a digital rights organization, computer programmers and
law professors, 2600 appealed the injunction. The United States Government Justice
Department intervened in support of the injunctions and the Screen Actors Guild filed briefs
in support of the MPAA. The issues raised by the case are so important that the decision by
the appeal court is likely to be subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Linking and framing

The courts have not decided whether linking and framing infringe copyright. Two important
cases that raised the issue settled before the court could clarify the legal issues by giving
judgment. There is an argument that placing restrictions on the use of links and framing
interferes with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

In 1997, Ticketmaster sued Microsoft for infringing its trademark by linking from a city
guide web site to a page inside Ticketmaster’s web site, known as a ‘deep link’. Ticketmaster
claimed the deep link prevented it controlling visitors to its web site and reduced advertising
revenue because it bypassed its ‘home page’ (Ticketmaster Corporation v Microsoft
Corporation (1997)). Microsoft relied on the First Amendment. The case reached a
settlement in February 1999, the terms of which remain confidential. However, Microsoft did
remove the deep link and now links to Ticketmaster’s home page.
314