Bifalgorithm post · Property · Eligibility

Copying Dispute

Copying Dispute (Property · Eligibility) — "Of the 11 telephone companies, only Rural refused to license its listings to Feist. Rural’s refusal created a probl…

Ideas in this flowchart

  • Feist used Rural’s white-pages listings without consent, leading to a copyright dispute.
  • Rural was the only one of the 11 telephone companies that refused to license its listings to Feist.
  • Omitting Rural’s listings would have created a major gap in Feist’s area-wide directory and reduced its appeal to yellow-pages advertisers.
  • Because it could not license the listings, Feist used them without Rural’s consent.
  • Feist removed several thousand listings outside the geographic range of its area-wide directory.
  • Feist hired personnel to investigate the remaining 4,935 listings, verify Rural’s data, and obtain additional information.
  • Despite these additions, 1,309 of Feist’s 46,878 listings were identical to listings in Rural’s 1982–1983 white pages.
  • Four identical listings were fictitious entries Rural had inserted to detect copying.
  • Rural sued Feist for copyright infringement in the District Court for the District of Kansas.
  • Rural argued that Feist could not use information contained in Rural’s white pages when compiling its own directory.
Feed/

Copying Dispute

Channel

Property

1 page

"Of the 11 telephone companies, only Rural refused to license its listings to Feist. Rural’s refusal created a problem for Feist, as omitting these listings would have left a gaping hole in its area-wide directory, rendering it less attractive to potential yellow pages advertisers. Unable to license Rural’s white pages listings, Feist used them without Rural’s consent. Feist began by removing several thousand listings that fell outside the geographic range of its area-wide directory, then hired personnel to investigate the 4,935 that remained. These employees verified the data reported by Rural and sought to obtain additional information. Notwithstanding these additions, however, 1,309 of the 46,878 listings in Feist’s 1983 directory were identical to listings in Rural’s 1982–1983 white pages. Four of these were fictitious listings that Rural had inserted into its directory to detect copying. Rural sued for copyright infringement in the District Court for the District of Kansas, taking the position that Feist, in compiling its own directory, could not use the information contained in Rural’s white pages."

Flowchart preview
Series cover
👍
0
0 comments0 shares

Sign in to view and post comments.