As it refers to this article, one thing must be clarified. The software in question was downloaded and installed without an EULA (either implied or otherwise) and therefore First Sale Doctrine rights do exist. Coupons, Inc (until recently) did not have a "licensing agreement" that a consumer had to agree to prior to downloading or installing the software. I'm sure that the reason they have one now is because of this lawsuit.
Coupons, Inc did not send ONE coupon file and he printed it over and over again.
Coupons, Inc sent individual files, each of which could be printed only one time.
IF your "pdf file" is availble on your website and you only allow a person to download it once, maintaining this restriction by logging ip numbers but a person constantly changes his ip number so he can download it multiple times is far different from him downloading the file ONCE and then making copies of it by printing the ONE file many times.
1) no copies were made. they are originals issued by coupons inc
In "real world" terms... have you ever seen a person giving away something for "free" but they have a limit on it?
Have you ever got back into line to get additional items for free?
Limit, 1 per customer at the local grocery store on a huge discounted 12 pack of pepsi.... so you go into the store, get the pepsi, checkout, take the pepsi to the car, go back into the store and repeat the process. There is no infringement.
Who said there was a contract? If you knew the entire story you would see how flawed your logic is. I've read the complaint, and have talked with "the hacker." Until very recently, coupons.com didn't even show a Licensing Agreement and distributed all of its software without one, furthermore, you can research their website all you desire and nowhere will you find a "Terms of Use" much less any contract, which by law, requires "a meeting of the minds"
There was no contract, therefore, no breach of any contract.
THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 381 F.3d 1178; 2004 U.S. App.
A plaintiff alleging a violation of 1201(a)(2) must prove: (1) ownership of a valid copyright on a work, (2) effectively controlled by a technological measure, which
has been circumvented, (3) that third parties can now access (4) without authorization, in a manner that (5) infringes or facilitates infringing a right protected by the
Copyright Act, because of a product that (6) the defendant either (i) designed or produced
primarily for circumvention; (ii) made available despite only limited commercial significance other than circumvention; or (iii) marketed for use in circumvention
of the controlling technological measure.
A plaintiff incapable of establishing any one of elements (1) through (5) will have failed to prove a prima facie case. A plaintiff capable of proving elements (1) through (5) need
prove only one of (6)(i), (ii), or (iii) to shift the burden back to the defendant. At that point, the various affirmative defenses enumerated throughout 1201 become relevant.
With DVD's, while making a copy for archive purposes, you are not violating the rights of the copyright holder.
Actually, there is already case law that states it is not illegal to circumvent DVD encryption if you are making your "archive" copy. It is illegal however, to market the circumvention software.
1) There are no "Terms of Use" on the Coupons.com website.
2) There is no "End User Licensing Agreement" on the Coupons.com website
3) The software in question was an embedded activex control and did not come with an EULA
4) Do coupons meet the "de minimis quantum" test for copyright protection (funny you never see the (c) on a coupon) and therefore fall under DMCA protection.
5) The printed coupons are not copies they are originals. (as opposed to photocopying, scanning and reprinting) Each coupon has a unique serial number.
Slashdot Mirror
As it refers to this article, one thing must be clarified. The software in question was downloaded and installed without an EULA (either implied or otherwise) and therefore First Sale Doctrine rights do exist. Coupons, Inc (until recently) did not have a "licensing agreement" that a consumer had to agree to prior to downloading or installing the software. I'm sure that the reason they have one now is because of this lawsuit.
Coupons, Inc did not send ONE coupon file and he printed it over and over again. Coupons, Inc sent individual files, each of which could be printed only one time.
IF your "pdf file" is availble on your website and you only allow a person to download it once, maintaining this restriction by logging ip numbers but a person constantly changes his ip number so he can download it multiple times is far different from him downloading the file ONCE and then making copies of it by printing the ONE file many times.
1) no copies were made. they are originals issued by coupons inc
In "real world" terms... have you ever seen a person giving away something for "free" but they have a limit on it?
Have you ever got back into line to get additional items for free?
Limit, 1 per customer at the local grocery store on a huge discounted 12 pack of pepsi.... so you go into the store, get the pepsi, checkout, take the pepsi to the car, go back into the store and repeat the process.
There is no infringement.
but hey, that's just my 2 cents
How does the actions described facilitate infringement?
I just have to ask...
What Fraud?
There was no contract, therefore, no breach of any contract.
A plaintiff alleging a violation of 1201(a)(2) must prove: (1) ownership of a valid copyright on a work, (2) effectively controlled by a technological measure, which has been circumvented, (3) that third parties can now access (4) without authorization, in a manner that (5) infringes or facilitates infringing a right protected by the Copyright Act, because of a product that (6) the defendant either (i) designed or produced primarily for circumvention; (ii) made available despite only limited commercial significance other than circumvention; or (iii) marketed for use in circumvention of the controlling technological measure.
A plaintiff incapable of establishing any one of elements (1) through (5) will have failed to prove a prima facie case. A plaintiff capable of proving elements (1) through (5) need prove only one of (6)(i), (ii), or (iii) to shift the burden back to the defendant. At that point, the various affirmative defenses enumerated throughout 1201 become relevant.
With DVD's, while making a copy for archive purposes, you are not violating the rights of the copyright holder.
Actually, there is already case law that states it is not illegal to circumvent DVD encryption if you are making your "archive" copy. It is illegal however, to market the circumvention software.
1) There are no "Terms of Use" on the Coupons.com website.
2) There is no "End User Licensing Agreement" on the Coupons.com website
3) The software in question was an embedded activex control and did not come with an EULA
4) Do coupons meet the "de minimis quantum" test for copyright protection (funny you never see the (c) on a coupon) and therefore fall under DMCA protection.
5) The printed coupons are not copies they are originals. (as opposed to photocopying, scanning and reprinting) Each coupon has a unique serial number.