News and its Presentation

Question 1

a) INS v AP:

Answer 1

news isn’t prop, but the packaging of news at a cost = creating a quasi-prop interest

i) F: AP’s “quasi-prop” right in hot news barred INS from wiring AP stories since AP had access INS didn’t
ii) Court relies on the anti-competitive actions by INS profiting off the work of AP
iii) Concur: should have credited AP as the source; taking of news was fine, but attribution mandatory
iv) “hot-news test”: hot-news, INS-like claim limited (protected) to cases where

Question 2

iv) “hot-news test”:

Answer 2

(a) π gathers/generates info at cost
(b) info is time-sensitive
(c) ∆’s use of that info constitutes free-riding on π’s efforts
(d) ∆ is in direct competition w/ product/service offered by πs
(e) ability of other parties to free-ride on π’s efforts would so reduce incentive to provide product/service that its existence/quality would be substantially threatened

Question 3

b) NBA v Motorola:

Answer 3

∆’s pager service allowed to transmit real-time game stats from broadcast to public because it did not infringe on competition interests involved in INS hot-news test

i) Once something is broadcast, it is in the public domain (no prop right)? When does a live event go into public domain? Does person sitting in a high-rise have right to watch baseball game?
(1) Argument: you can try to control access, but you can’t own the occurrence