" Wendy M. Melone, Contributory Liability for Access Providers: Solving the Conundrum Digitalization Has Placed on Copyright Laws.": Discussing Playboy, Sega, and Netcom cases, and suggesting contributory liability for ISPs as the best approach.

" George Smirnoff III, Note: Copyright on the Internet: A Critique of the White Paper’s Recommendation for Updating the Copyright Act and How the Courts are already Filling in its Most Important Shortcoming, On-line Service Provider Liability.": Brief overview of copyright law, followed by an in-depth discussion of the NII White Paper and ISP liability.

"Mary Ann Shulman, Comment: Internet Copyright Infringement Liability: Is an Online Access Provider More Like a Landlord or a Dance Hall Operator?":Good discussion of the various approaches to ISP infringement liability.

" David Nimmer, Brains and Other Paraphernalia of the Digital Age.": Very good (and entertaining) article discussing the problems inherent in applying copyright law to new technology.

"ISPs Urge Congress to Take Action Regarding Copyright Liability.":Brief article discussing an ISP liability bill and presenting both sides of the issue.

Reno v. ACLU, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997): Affirming ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D. Penn. 1996), which held CDA provisions imposing liability on Internet access providers unconstitutional.

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997): CDA barred negligence action against ISP for delay in removing defamatory postings, not posting retractions, and not screening for further defamatory postings. Mentions that Stratton Oakmont overruled by CDA.

Religious Technology Ctr. v. Netcom, 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995): Court held access provider not directly or vicariously liable for infringing acts of subscriber, but suggested it might be contributorily liable if the plaintiff proved knowledge. Parties settled before issue resolved.

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Company, 1995 WL 805178 (N.Y. Sup.): Holding online service provider liable for defamation. Court analogized that Prodigy had held itself out as a publisher because of its family-oriented claim, therefore should be liable for control of subscriber’s actions.

Sega Enters., Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 857 F. Supp. 679 (N.D. Cal. 1994): Granting copyright owner’s motion for preliminary injunction based on strong likelihood of success in showing contributory infringement by BBS operator

Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993): Holding BBS operator liable for direct infringement regardless of lack of knowledge of infringing activities of subscriber)

Cubby v. CompuServe, 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991): Holding online service provider not liable for defamatory statement of subscriber without actual or constructive knowledge.

No Electronic Theft Act: Clinton signs Net copyright bill—imposes criminal penalties on copyright violators who do not profit from their actions

Copyright law: some fundamental sources, by the Copyright Management Center: Includes links to 17 U.S.C. (The Copyright Act), Supreme Court decisions, Copyright Office materials, and NII materials, including the White Paper. Also includes links to information on Berne, WIPO, and other international copyright issues

Return to Hypothetical Problem