copyright and trademark issues on the internet
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
1/45
www.gesmer.com
Copyright and TrademarkIssues on the Internet
Rossdale CLEApril 25, 2012
Lee Gesmer
Gesmer Updegrove LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
Copyright Gesmer Updegrove LLP 2012
-
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
2/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Topics:
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Copyright First Sale Doctrine
Keyword Advertising/Trademark
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
2
http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
3/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter
Capital Partners LLC, 667 F.3d 1022(9th Cir. 2011)
- Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. Youtube, Inc.,
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6909 (2d Cir.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2012)
3
-
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
4/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
17 USC 512 Safe Harbors
512 immunizes Internet intermediaries for usersupplied infringing content but service provider -
Must: comply mechanics: agent, notice/take
down, repeat infringer policy
Must: provide storage at direction of a user
Must not: Have actual knowledge or facts/
circumstances
Must not: Derive financial benefit + right/ability to control
4
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
5/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
By Reason of Storage at Direction of User
A service provider shall not be liable . . .
by reason of the storage at the direction of
a userof material that resides on a system
or network controlled or operated by or for
the service provider . . . 512(c)
5
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
6/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
By Reason of Storage - Veoh
language and structure of the statute . . . [and]legislative intent clarify that 512(c) encompasses
the access-facilitating processes that automatically
occur when a user uploads a video to Veoh
web hosts, like Veoh, . . . store user-submitted
materialsin order to make those materials
accessibleto other Internet users. . . . if the web
host only stored information for a single user, it
would be more aptly described as an online back-up
service
6
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
7/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
By Reason of Storage - Youtube
Agrees with Veoh regarding scope of storage safeharbor transcoding, playback and related
videos (automated algorithm) fall within safe
harbor
Third-party syndication Youtube licensed videos to
Verizon. Manual selection of copyrighted material
for licensing to a third party
=> Remanded to determine whether clips-in-suit
were licensed
7
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
8/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Actual Knowledge/Facts-Circumstances
[the service provider is not liable if it] . . .
does not have actual knowledge that the
material . . . is infringing;. . . in the absence of such actualknowledge, is not aware offacts orcircumstances from which infringing activityis apparent (Red Flag)
512(c)(1)(a)
8
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
9/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Veoh - Actual Know./Facts-Circumst.
Actual knowledge/facts and circumstances bothrequire specific knowledge of infringing conduct, notgeneralized knowledge
Email from Disney CEO to Veoh investor inadequatebecause the copyright holderdid not comply withnotice requirements - deficient notice "shall not beconsidered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining
whether a service provider has actual knowledge or isaware of facts or circumstances from which infringingactivity is apparent"
9
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
10/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Youtube - Actual Know./Facts-Circumst.
the actual knowledge provision turns on whetherthe provider actually or subjectively knew ofspecific infringement, while the red flag provisionturns on whether the provider was subjectivelyaware of facts that would have made the specific
infringement objectively obvious to areasonable person
=> Upon a review of the record, we arepersuaded that the plaintiffs may have raised amaterial issue of fact regarding YouTubesknowledge or awareness of specific instancesof infringement
10
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
11/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Youtube - Willful Blindness Doctrine
Safe harbor not conditioned on service providermonitoring its service or affirmatively seeking factsindicating infringing activity . . . [DMCA] isincompatible with a broad common law duty to
monitor or otherwise seek out infringing activitybased on general awareness . . . . . . [therefore]willful blindness cannot be defined as anaffirmative duty to monitor. . . . [But the statutedoes not] abrogate the doctrine. . . . the willful
blindness doctrine may be applied, in appropriatecircumstances, to demonstrate knowledge orawareness of specific instances of infringement
11
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
12/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Financial Benefit ... Ability to Control
Service provider is eligible for the 512(c)safe harbor only if it -
"does not receive a financial benefit
directly attributable to the infringingactivity, in a case in which the serviceprovider has the right and ability tocontrol such activity" 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)
(B)
=> Financial Benefit + Control Safe Harbor
12
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
13/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Veoh - Financial Benefit/Control
Service provider must be aware of specificinfringing material to have the ability tocontrol that infringing activity . . . Onlythen would its failure to exercise its abilityto control deny it a safe harbor . . . "rightand ability to control" . . . requires controlover specific infringing activity the providerknows about . . . Of course, a serviceprovider cannot willfully bury its head inthe sandto avoid obtaining such specificknowledge . . .
13
http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
14/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Youtube - Financial Benefit/Control
importing a specific knowledgerequirement into [control/benefit] rendersthe control provision duplicative of [theactual knowledge provision]. Any service
provider that has item-specific knowledgeof infringing activity and thereby obtainsfinancial benefit would already be excludedfrom the [control/benefit] safe harbor . . .for having specific knowledge of infringingmaterial and failing to effect expeditiousremoval.
14
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
15/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Youtube - Financial Benefit/Control
Perfect 10 v. Cybernet Ventures, 213 F. Supp. 2d1146 (C.D. Cal. 2002) - service providerinstituted a monitoring program by which userwebsites received detailed instructions regarding
issues of layout, appearance, and content, andalso forbade certain types of content and refusedaccess to users who failed to comply with itsinstructions
=> exerting substantial influence on theactivities of users, without necessarilyoreven frequentlyacquiring knowledge ofspecific infringing activity
15
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
16/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Youtube - Financial Benefit/Control
the right and ability to control infringing activityunder 512(c)(1)(B) requires something more thanthe ability to remove or block access to materialsposted on a service providers website . . . The
remainingand more difficultquestion is how todefine the something more that is required . . .we think it prudent to remand to the District Courtto considerin the first instance whether theplaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence to allow
a reasonable jury to conclude that YouTube had theright and ability to control the infringing activityand received a financial benefit directlyattributable to that activity
16
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
17/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Attempt to graft GroksterontoDMCA
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v.Grokster(U.S. 2005)
... one who distributes a device with the
object of promoting its use to infringecopyright, as shown by clear expression or
other affirmative stops taken to foster
infringement, is liable for the resulting actsof infringement by third parties
17
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
18/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Viacom: YouTube is a Video Grokster
- [W]e need views, [but] Im a little concernedwith the recent [S]upreme [C]ourt ruling oncopyrighted material
- [S]ave your meal money for some lawsuits!- concentrate all of our efforts in building upour numbers as aggressively as we can throughwhatever tactics, however evil
- our dirty little secret . . . is that we actuallyjust want to sell out quickly
18
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
19/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Both courts reject application ofGrokster
Veoh - In light of the DMCA's language,structure, purpose and legislative history, weare compelled to rejectUMG'sargument thatthe district court should have
employedNapster's vicarious liabilitystandard . . .
Youtube - a finding of safe harbor applicationnecessarily protects a defendant from allaffirmative claims for monetary relief
19
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
20/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Veoh - Investor Liability (secondary liab.)
The Investor Defendants argue that it would beillogical to impose greater liability on them than onVeoh itself. Although we agree that this wouldcreate an anomalous result, we assume without
deciding that the suit against the InvestorDefendants can properly proceedeven though Veohis protected from monetary liability by the DMCA
. . . were we to hold that Veoh was protected, but
its investors were not, investors might hesitate toprovide the necessary funding to companies likeVeoh, and Congress' purpose in passing the DMCAwould be undermined
20
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
21/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Veoh: Prevailing Def. Denied Atty Fees
FRCP 68 If the judgment that the offereefinally obtains is not more favorable than the
unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay thecosts incurred after the offer was made
Copyright statute - court "may . . . award areasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing
party as part of the costs" 17 U.S.C. 505
21
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
22/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Capitol Records v. Redigi First SaleDoctrine and Digital Recordings
Sell your old songslegally The worlds firstused digital music marketplace -Buy usedmusic insanely cheap
Store, Stream, Buy and Sell Pre-Owned
Digital Music
22
https://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttps://www.redigi.com/splash.jsp%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blankhttp://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
23/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Redigi (2) ....
Step One: file is space shifted to musiclocker, verified, fingerprinted, owners localcopy deleted
Step Two: Owner designates file for sale -purchased file is retitled to the new owner
Step Three:The new owner can leave the file onRedigi or download
23
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
24/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Redigi (3) ....
Capitols Argument -- first sale doctrine limited to owner of aparticular copy (a material object) in whicha copyrighted work is fixed, to dispose of the
possession of that copy- Digital transmissions do not involve the physicaltransfer of a material object
- Digital resale requires reproduction of the
original file and creation of a new copy=> Ergo, first sale does not apply
24
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
25/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
First Sale Doctrine
. . . the owner of a particular copy orphonorecord lawfully made under this title,or any person authorized by such owner, isentitled, without the authority of the
copyright owner, to sell or otherwise disposeof the possession of that copy orphonorecord 17 US.C. 109(a)
Copy owners rights, as opposed tocopyright owners rights
25
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
26/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Vernor v. Autodesk (9th Cir. 2010)
Garage sale purchaser of software bound bylicense prohibiting resale?
First, we consider whether the copyright
owner specifies that a user is granted alicense. Second, we consider whether thecopyright owner significantly restricts theusers ability to transfer the software.
Finally, we consider whether the copyrightowner imposes notable use restrictions
26
http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
27/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records(9th Cir. Cal. 2010)
where a copyright owner transfers a copy
of copyrighted material, retains title, limitsthe uses to which the material may be put,and is compensated periodicallybased onthe transferees exploitation of the
material, the transaction is a license
27
-
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
28/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
MDY v. Blizzard (9th Cir. 2010)
EULA for WoW restricted use of BOT thatplayed through game levels
Yes, but:
Yes - WoW players are licensees
But - the anti-BOT restriction was acovenant rather than a copyright -
enforceable condition
28
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
29/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto (9th Cir.2011)
Unsolicited promo CDs - license or transfer?
No agreement in place
Resale or transfer of possession is notallowed ...
Unordered merchandise statute
29
K W d Ad i i /T d k
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
30/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Key Word Advertising/Trademark
Rosetta Stone v. Google, Inc. (4th Cir. 2012)
Intent:
< 2004 - Google did not allow the use of trademarks askeyword search triggers for unauthorized advertisers orin the body or title of the text of an advertisement
> 2004 Loosened restrictions, but continued toprevent advertisers from using trademarks in ad text orad titles unless authorized; recognized increase in risk.
>2009 Permitted use of trademark terms in ad text
even if advertiser doesnt own the mark or haveexplicit approval from the trademark owner to use it(resellers, components, compatible parts, info/reviews)
30
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
31/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Rosetta Stone (2) ....
Viewing the evidence and all reasonableinferences in a light most favorable to
Rosetta Stone . . . a reasonable trier offact could find that Google intended tocause confusion in that it acted with theknowledge that confusion was very likely to
result from its use of the marks
31
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
32/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Rosetta Stone (3) ....
Actual Confusion:
5 depositions, confusion as to sponsorship (vssource) sufficient
Rosetta over 250 complaints Google admissions - the only effectivetrademark policy is to allow trademark usage forkeywords but not allow trademark usage in ad
text - title or body Googles internal studies probative as to actualconfusion
32
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
33/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Rosetta Stone (4) ....
Sophistication of Consuming Public:
internal Google study reflect[s] that even well-
educated, seasoned Internet consumers areconfused by the nature of Google's sponsoredlinks and are sometimes even unaware thatsponsored links are, in actuality,advertisements
33
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
34/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Rosetta Stone (5) ....
Functionality Defense:
Reversed district courts holding thatGoogles use of keywords was functional
Contributory Infringement:
Remanded question of fact as to whether
Google continued to supply services toknown infringers
34
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
35/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Network Automation v. Advanced SystemsConcepts (9th Cir. 2011)
Trademark owner lawsuit against keywordadvertiser(compare Rosetta Stone, suingsearch engine)
Network Autos ads did not use plaintiffstrademark
Buying keyword ads constitutes a use incommerce (accord: Rescuecom Corp. v.Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009)(selling keywords is use in commerce)
35
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/doc/06-4881-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/hilite/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/doc/06-4881-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/hilite/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/doc/06-4881-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/hilite/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/doc/06-4881-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/hilite/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/doc/06-4881-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3655e4ac-c860-4bc2-8c61-68a117af23ee/1/hilite/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
36/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Network Automation (2) ...
Most relevant factors to likelihood ofconfusion:
(1) strength of the mark;
(2) evidence of actual confusion;
(3) type of goods/ degree of care likely to beexercised by the purchaser; and
(4) labeling and appearance of theadvertisements and the surrounding context onthe screen displaying the results page
36
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
37/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Network Automation (3) ...
Demise of Initial Interest Confusion?
Internet users on the whole exercise a lowdegree of care. Brookfield Commcns v. WestCoast Entmt Corp.,174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir.1999)
the owner of the mark must demonstratelikely confusion, not mere diversion . . .
[initial interest limited to] misleading anddeceptive. Network Automation, 2011
37
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
38/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Network Automation (4) ...
Similar marketing channels:
it would be the rare commercial retailer
that did not advertise online, and theshared use of a ubiquitous marketingchannel does not shed much light on thelikelihood of consumer confusion
=> Preliminary injunction vacated
38
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
39/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc (9th Cir. 2011)
Web host liability/counterfeiting retailers
- $32M damages at trial
-"providing direct infringers with server space"qualifies as a material contribution forcontributory copyright infringement.
De facto notice/takedown for trademarks?
See also Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2010)
39
http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
40/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4):
(a) Whoever
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud,
accesses a protected computer withoutauthorization, or exceeds authorizedaccess, and by means of such conductfurthers the intended fraud and obtains
anything of value . . .
shall be punished . . . .
40
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
41/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
CFAA - U.S. v. Nosal (9th Cir. 2011) (panel)
Company policy "restricted the use anddisclosure of all such information, exceptfor legitimate [company] business
"an employee 'exceeds authorizedaccess' ...when he ...violates theemployer's computer access restrictions --including use restrictions
41
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
42/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
CFAA - U.S. v. Nosal (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)
we hold that the phrase exceeds authorizedaccess in the CFAA does not extend to violations ofuse restrictions (Majority, Judge Alex Kosinski)
This case has nothing to do with playing sudoku,checking email, fibbing on dating sites, or any ofthe other activities that the majority rightly values.It has everything to do with stealing an employersvaluable information to set up a competing business
with the purloined data, siphoned away from thevictim, knowing such access and use were
prohibitedin the defendants employmentcontracts (Silverman, dissenting)
42
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
43/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
CFAA - U.S. v. Tolliver (3rd Cir. 2011)
Upheld CFAA conviction of former bankteller who provided confidential accountinformation to "check runners" who cashedfraudulent checks against the accounts of
bank customers
No reference to bank policies, but "therewas sufficient evidence" that "Tolliver
exceeded her authorized access" because"she did not have a business purpose" toaccess the customers' accounts
43
http://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
44/45
www.gesmer.com4.25.2012
CFAA - U.S. v. Teague (8th Cir. 2011)
8th Cir. upheld CFAA conviction whereemployee viewed Obama student loan data,but did not remove/use it
Compare: U.S. v. Czubinski (1st Cir. 1997)(merely viewing data insufficient - theremust be a "showing of some additional end --
to which the unauthorized access is a means)
44
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7274469352147073368&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7274469352147073368&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7274469352147073368&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrhttp://www.gesmer.com/http://www.gesmer.com/ -
8/2/2019 Copyright and Trademark Issues on the Internet
45/45
CFAA - Pulte Homes v. Laborers' InternlUnion (6th Cir. 2011)
Labor union "bombarded" employerscomputer systems with emails andvoicemails disrupting communications withits customers/ vendors
Liable for "knowingly caus[ing] thetransmission of a program, information,code, or command, and as a result of such
conduct, intentionally caus[ing] damagewithout authorization, to a protectedcomputer"
45