|
〔6〕Margaret Kane. Google pauses library project 〔EB/OL〕.CNET News.com.2005-08-12. 〔2007-10-02〕. http://www.news.com/Google-pauses-library-project/2100-1025_3-5830035.html
〔7〕Authors Guild是美国最大的出版作家社团组织，现拥有成员8,000余人。¬——作者注.
〔8〕 Author’s Guile v. Google, Inc., No 05 CV 8136(S. D. N. Y. filed Sept. 20, 2005) 〔EB/OL〕. News.findlaw.com. 〔2007-10-22〕. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/mcggoog101905cmp.pdf
〔9〕Authors Guild, Press Release. Authors Guild Sues Google, Citing “Massive Copyright Infringement” 〔EB/OL〕. 2005-09-20. 〔2007-10-02〕. http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citing.htm.
〔10〕 McGraw-hill Cos., Inc. v. Google Inc., No 05 CV 8881(S. D. N. Y. filed Oct. 19, 2005) 〔EB/OL〕. News.findlaw.com. 〔2007-10-22〕. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/mcggoog101905cmp.pdf
〔11〕Edward Wyatt. Major Publishers Sue Google 〔N〕. N.Y. Times, 2005-10-20(2). 〔2007-10-02〕. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E4DA123FF933A15753C1A9639C8B63&n=Top%2FNews%2FBusiness%2FCompanies%2FMcGraw-Hill%20Companies
〔12〕曾文革，陈静熔. 知识产权法学﹝M﹞. 重庆：重庆大学出版社，2002，72-73.
〔13〕Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C.§106. 〔EB/OL〕. 2006-01-02 〔2007-10-06〕. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt
〔14〕 FN1 Reported by William W. Story. Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, 6 Hunt Mer. Mag. 175, 2 Story 100, No. 4901, Case No.4,901, 2 Story, 100; 〔FN1〕 6 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 175. 〔EB/OL〕. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. Oct. Term, 1841. 〔2007-10-02〕. http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/Pdf/case-folsom.marsh.pdf.
〔15〕 In short, we must often, in deciding questions of this sort, look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work. 同上注.
〔16〕 Office of the Law Revision Counsel.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. 17 U.S.C.§. 107 〔EB/OL〕. 2006-01-02 〔2007-10-06〕. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt.
〔17〕 同上注.
〔18〕一审判决见Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (D. Cal. 1999); 二审判决见Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003).
〔19〕 根据信息产业部电信管理局2003年3月21日发布的《关于重新调整<电信业务分类目录>的通告》所用术语, “互联网”一词已为规范的“因特网”一词所取代。本文亦遵从该规定使用因特网一词。——作者注
〔20〕商业性使用表现为为节省对授权副本的购买费用而反复地和带有掠夺性地制作未经授权副本的行为。——Commercial use is demonstrated by a showing that repeated and exploitative unauthorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001)
〔21〕Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. 17 USC §. 106 〔EB/OL〕. 2006-01-02 〔2007-10-10〕. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt
〔22〕Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. 17 USC §. 101 〔EB/OL〕. 2006-01-02 〔2007-10-10〕. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt
〔23〕Field v. Google Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006) 〔EB/OL〕. 〔2007-10-10〕 http://www.wsgr.com/attorneys/NEWBIOS/PDFs/field_google.pdf.
〔24〕Office of the Law Revision Counsel. (b) System Caching. Sec. 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online.17 USC §.512 〔EB/OL〕. 2006-01-02 〔2007-10-11〕 http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C5.txt
〔25〕 The court held that the automated, non-volitional conduct by the search engine''s computers in response to users'' requests did not constitute direct infringement under the Copyright Act. Furthermore, the author''s decision not to include a no-archive meta-tag on the pages of his Web site that contained his copyrighted works, knowing that search engines would interpret the absence of such a meta-tag as permission to allow access to the pages via cached links, could reasonably be interpreted as the grant of a license to a search engine for that use. The court also held that the author was estopped from asserting a copyright claim against the Internet search engine. To the extent that the search engine itself copied or distributed the copyrighted works by allowing access to them through cached links, the search engine engaged in a fair use of those copyrighted works. Because the search engine served different and socially important purposes in offering access to copyrighted works through cached links and did not merely supersede the objectives of the original creations, the court concluded that its alleged copying and distribution of the author''s copyrighted works was transformative. 同注10.
|
