Obama Climate Plan To Enter Court This Week

Obama Climate Plan To Enter Court This Week

Justin Farooq

Oral arguments by opponents of President Obama’s Climate Plan were heard last Tuesday, September 27, 2016, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.   President Obama’s marque climate change policy has considerable political, economic and historical impact.[1]  Its legality, which is widely anticipated to eventually be decided by the Supreme Court, could rest on a legislative mistake in an unclear provision of a 26-year-old statute.[2]  The mistake in the law at issue here, State of West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, involves an amendment to the Clean Air Act passed by Congress in 1990.[3]

The Clean Air Act of 1970 is the legal basis of Obama’s Clean Power Plan. An ambiguous provision in that act, Section 111(d), gave the E.P.A. far-reaching power to regulate unknown future contaminants.[4] When the act was passed, carbon dioxide was not considered a pollutant.[5]  In 1990, when Congress passed the new Clean Air Act, it amended Section 111(d).  The amendment passed by the House said that if the E.P.A. was already regulating power plant pollution under a separate law, it could not use Section 111(d) to generate new regulations, which would essentially double regulate, but the amendment passed by the Senate, conversely, did permit such double regulation.[6]  When the two bills were combined, Congress forgot to remove one of the disagreeing amendments and thus President George Bush signed it into law with both amendments in place.[7]

Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, and a leader in coordinating the legal opposition to the plan, said, “The E.P.A. is going beyond what it’s authorized to do by Congress and essentially creating new law.”[8]  The consequences of the decision could be monumental.  If the law is struck down, the United States will lose its ability to slash greenhouse gas productions, and if upheld, it will forever change the electricity system, shutting down hundreds of coal plants and creating a comprehensive shift to wind, solar and nuclear energy.[9]

 

[1] Coral Davenport, Obama Climate Plan, Now in Court, May Hinge on Error in 1990 Law, The NY Times (Sep. 25 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/politics/obama-court-clean-power-plan.html.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

 

[1] Kevin Penton, Supreme Court Urged To End Laches Defense In Patent Cases, Law 360, https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/852823/supreme-court-urged-to-end-laches-defense-in-patent-cases (October 19, 2016, 4:13 PM).

[2] Id.  See also, 35 U.S.C.A. § 286.

[3] See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962, 1970 (2014).

[4] Id.

[5] Penton, supra note 1.

[6] Id.

[7] Bill Donahue, High Court Gives ‘Raging Bull’ Copyright Suit 1 More Round, Law 360, http://www.law360.com/articles/538794/ (May 19, 2014, 10:17 AM).

Using Virtual Reality to Tackle Chronic Pain

Jonathan Ziarko

As the new technology of VR (Virtual Reality) is becoming widespread throughout society people are discovering new and innovative ways to use it. The technique known as, Clinical VR, is being tested as a coping mechanism for chronic pain as a substitute to pain medication.[1] The importance of this new technology cannot be understated. It is estimated that one in five people in developed countries will have to deal with long-term chronic pain.[2] In addition to that chronic pain costs the United States around $560 billion a year in lost productivity and healthcare costs.[3] Although the VR gear is quite expensive its usefulness in the area of pain management could be a game changer in the medical industry.

The technique using virtual reality immersion to, in essence, distract patients from the extremely painful care that may be going on around them, such as wound cleaning.[4] The patient’s brain simply cannot take in the visual information around them as usual and they have something else to focus on other than the care being provided. Some researches have found that the use of Clinical VR can reduce a patients perceived pain by as much as 24% which is close to the same decrease seen with the use of narcotics.[5] However it does not help everyone and most physicians are being careful right now to not oversell the value of it.[6] It is still an emerging technology but it could become something we see in all hospitals very soon.

 

[1] Sophia Stuart, These Doctors Are Incorporating VR Into Pain Management, PCMag (Oct. 6, 2016, 08:00 AM EST), http://www.pcmag.com/news/348386/these-doctors-are-incorporating-vr-into-pain-management.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Rachel Metz, Better Than Opioids? Virtual Reality Could Be Your Next Painkiller, MIT Technology Review (July 18, 2016), https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601911/better-than-opioids-virtual-reality-could-be-your-next-painkiller/.

[6] Id.

MIT Researchers Develop Device to Determine Human Emotions

Shamsheer Kailey

Researchers from MIT’s CSAIL (Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory) have developed a device that can determine human emotions by analyzing reflection in wireless signals. The device, called EQ-Radio, does not depend on emotional cues rather uses wireless signals that bounce off of human body. The reflection measures breathing and heart rate of the human and the information is used to predict the emotion state of the person as being happy, sad, angry, or excited.

EQ-Radio’s success rate in detecting emotions is higher than its rivals such as Microsoft’s Emotion API. In a sample size of 30 people between the age of 19-77, EQ- Radio correctly guessed emotions 87 percent of the time. The leader of the project, Dina Katabi, said that they hope this technology can be used to monitor and diagnose medical conditions such as depression and anxiety.

It could serve as a less invasive way to monitor patient’s heartbeat thus, minimizing the need to be hooked to monitoring devices. This technology could also be used by TV and movie studios to read what parts of movie worked in focus groups, and smart homes could change the music based on the person’s mood.

 

______________________________________________________________________________

­­­­­­­­­­Mary Beth Griggs, Wireless Sensors Can Detect People’s Emotions, Popular Science (September 20, 2016), http://www.popsci.com/wireless-sensors-can-detect-peoples-emotions.

Mommy, Daddy, and Donor: Birth of ‘3-Parent Baby’ Proves Banned Procedure Successful

Emma Fusco

Last Tuesday, a healthy baby was born in Mexico to a Jordanian Couple.[1]  What makes this birth so spectacular is that this child technically has three parents.  This was the first live birth of a child using a technique that is banned in the United States.[2]

This technique involves traditional sperm and egg, plus additional DNA from a third party donor and used when one parent has mutated mitochondria that would affect the child’s health.[3]  The mitochondria are separate from the DNA that determines a child’s inherited traits so, if the mitochondria contain mutations, this can result in fatal diseases that often kill babies with a few years.[4]

In order to do this, DNA is removed from the egg of the mother containing the mutated mitochondria, and is placed into the egg of a healthy donor after removing that donor’s nuclear DNA.  That egg is then fertilized.[5]

Initially, the couple had gone through two bouts of trial and error through a less invasive technique, but their first child died at age 6, and the second at 8 months.[6]  The couple was then referred to a fertility center in Mexico since this procedure is banned in the United States.[7]

This successful birth raises the question of when this technique will become legal in the United States?  Plenty of other countries are implementing this procedure and are far past the research stage.[8]  For many couples, this is the only way to conceive a healthy child.  Perhaps if the United States doesn’t lift this ban on this procedure, many more couples will be going abroad to conceive.

 

[1] Gina Kolata, Birth of ‘3-Parent Baby’ a Success for Controversial Procedure, N.Y. Times, Sept. 28, 2016, at A4.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Kolata, supra.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

October FDA Update – Approval of Medtronic’s New Insulin Delivery System

William Salage

On September 28, 2016 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Medtronic’s new insulin delivery system for people with Type 1 diabetes, the MiniMed 670G hybrid closed looped system (MiniMed 670G). The MiniMed 670G consists of two major parts: (1) an insulin pump, and (2) a continuous glucose monitor. These two components were already approved by the FDA separately and are already on the market. The MiniMed 670G however combines these two components together with a new part, a program which communicates between the two devices. The MiniMed 670G is therefore the first device to automatically monitor glucose (sugar) and provide appropriate basal insulin doses in people 14 years of age and older with type 1 diabetes. Specifically, the MiniMed 670G predicts when a person’s blood sugar is dropping and prevents the low in the first place, and also corrects high blood sugars. However, users still need to manually request insulin doses to counter carbohydrate (meal) consumption

The implication of Medtronic’s new system is enormous for those with Type 1 diabetes. The new capabilities mean they can both sleep through the night without worrying about their blood sugars dropping too low and can go through their day without having to think about their diabetes all the time, according to Aaron Kowalski, chief mission officer for the JDRF, the organization that funds much of the “artificial pancreas” research.

Deutsche Bank’s Feud with DOJ and its 14 Billion Settlement

Xiang Qi

Shares of Deutsche Bank, one of the world’s largest banks, slopped by 7.5% in European trading and closed at $11.85 after U.S. Department of Justice proposed last week that it pays a 14 billion dollar settlement in light of a mortgage-securities investigation.[1] Although the Bank’s spokesman Jörg Eigendorf denied that Chief Executive John Cryan has sought help from the German government, it has always been the German government who ended up pay for these settlements. [2] Ever since last year, Deutsche Bank’s share price has been decreasing in both European and U.S. stock markets as a result of repeated settlement with the DOJ.

Speculations have it that DOJ reached its astronomical number of settlement in retaliation of EU’s taxes of 14.5 billion on Apple on September 1st. It is no coincidence that the amounts involved in both cases are almost equal as the EU committee is led by countries like Germany and France. These settlements unfortunately has placed Deutsche Bank’s riskiest debt securities under pressure, besides its market shares. Its $2 billion worth of certain additional Tier 1 debt fell about 2 Euro cents on Monday, to around 73 cents on the euro. [3]

There are mainly two reasons that helped establish Deutsche Bank’s feud against U.S. authorities. The first one is German government’s attitude towards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Angela Merkel’s hesitation to support TTIP has undermined credibility and feasibility of ratify the agreement between EU and the U.S. despite years of efforts in negotiation by the U.S.

The second reason is that the German and French led Euro-zone has not been willing to execute a new round of quantitative easing (QE). The European Central Bank again refused a QE motion on this month’s EU general council meeting. This decision has put the Federal Reserve on a tough spot as the return of U.S. debts has been climbing by 24 percent within the last three month. Chancellor Merkel’s domestic policy has also led to its party’s approval rates slumping among the young voters. Merkel and her cabinet had to be very discrete as they deal with the transatlantic relationship with the U.S.

 

[1] Jenny Strasburg, Deutsche Bank Shares Drop on Fears of Capital Raising, The Wall Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/deutsche-bank-shares-drop-on-fears-of-capital-raising-1474881370

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

 

iPhone 6 Defect is a Touchy Subject for Apple

Nick Dellefave

Apple is again making headlines, this time for an iPhone defect that has touched thousands of iPhone users and is likely to affect many more. The defect, known colloquially as “touch disease,” has been the subject of numerous complaints from consumers, experts, and Apple employees.[1] Touch disease involves a loss of functionality of the touch screen, typically in the form of frozen phone screens or screens that are unresponsive to touch, rendering the phone unusable.[2] The issue is characterized in particular by the appearance of grey bars across the top of the iPhone screen.[3]

Touch disease is apparently a consequence of “bendgate,” a structural design problem that causes the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus to bend.[4] The bending, which is caused by the iPhone 6’s thinner profile and a change to a less rigid rear case, results in the bending and twisting of the internal logic board during day-to-day use.[5] The logic board can experience slight deformation when the iPhone is pulled from a pocket, put into a tight-fitting case, or dropped.[6] Gradually, after being bent and flexed thousands of times, the Touch IC chips – two controller chips responsible for the functionality of the touch screen – begin to dislodge from the logic board.[7] This causes the “misfires” that are behind touch disease.[8] The problem is especially prevalent in the iPhone 6 Plus, because it is larger than the iPhone 6 and is thus more prone to bending.[9]

The Touch IC chips in the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus are connected to the logic board via small solder balls, the separation of which is responsible for the loss of touch screen functionality.[10] In previous iPhone models, the chips were covered with a rigid metal shield and reinforced with underfill, while in the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, the shield was replaced by a flexible sticker shield and no underfill is used for the Touch IC chips.[11] In the newer iPhone 6s and 6s Plus, the Touch IC chips were relocated to the display assembly and away from the flexible logic board.[12]

While Apple has made changes to prevent the bending and screen functionality issues in its newer phones, as of this writing, the company has taken no action to remedy what appear to be the long-term consequences of this defect.[13] Apple Store employees report that Apple is aware of the issue, but for customers whose phones are no longer under warranty, the repair costs $329.[14]

At least one class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States on behalf of owners of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus.[15] Others have been filed in Canada.[16] The US suit accuses Apple of violating California’s consumer fraud statutes as well as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.[17] The plaintiffs in the suit request that Apple repair, recall, and/or replace iPhones affected by touch disease, as well as extend the warranties for all iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus users for related issues.[18]

It may be in Apple’s best interest to take these steps, lawsuit or no lawsuit. As a high-end brand that thrives on its reputation for quality, Apple would likely be severely impacted by the negative publicity resulting from the revelation that an entire generation of its products is susceptible to a design defect. With the iPhone 7 hitting store shelves and the holiday season just around the corner, maintaining that reputation is of critical importance.

 

[1] Jason Koebler, Geniuses Say Apple Knows About iPhone 6 ‘Touch Disease’, Won’t Admit It Publicly, Motherboard (Sept. 27, 2016, 10:30 AM), http://motherboard.vice.com/read/apple-employees-company-is-hiding-iphone-6-plus-touch-disease-truth-from-customers?utm_source=mbfbads&utm_campaign=interest.

[2] Julia Bluff, A Design Defect Is Breaking a Ton of iPhone 6 Pluses, iFixIt (Aug. 23, 2016), http://ifixit.org/blog/8309/iphone-6-plus-gray-flicker-touch-death/.

[3] Id.

[4] Anthony Cuthbertson, iPhone 6 Design Flaw is ‘Bendgate 2.0’, Newsweek (Aug. 25, 2016, 12:19 PM), http://www.newsweek.com/iphone-6-design-flaw-bendgate-20-493428?utm_source=internal&utm_campaign=incontent&utm_medium=related1.

[5] Bluff, supra note 2.

[6] Koebler, supra note 1.

[7] Bluff, supra note 2.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Bluff, supra note 2.

[13] Koebler, supra note 1.

[14] Id.

[15] iPhone 6 Touchscreen Defect, McCune Wright LLP, http://mccunewright.com/iphone-6-touchscreen-defect/.

[16] Sophia Harris, ‘Piece of Crap’: Apple Hit With Proposed Class Action Lawsuits Over iPhone ‘Touch Disease’, CBC News (Oct. 2, 2016), http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/apple-touch-disease-iphone-6-class-action-1.3786930.

[17] Chance Miller, Apple Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over iPhone 6 ‘Touch Disease’ Hardware Issue, 9to5Mac (Aug. 29, 2016), https://9to5mac.com/2016/08/29/apple-iphone-touch-disease-lawsuit/.

[18] Id.

Businesses Appeal to Chinese Government over Cybersecurity

By: Dan Hart

An alliance of forty-six business groups appealed to the Chinese government to reconsider proposed legislation that would enforce strict cyber-security rules. These business groups, hailing from the United States, Europe, and Asia, believe the new regulations will negatively impact foreign trade with China and serve to further isolate the country.[1] These complaints are the latest against a perceived trend of economic isolationism, or favoritism towards domestic business over foreign investors.[2]

The rules would allow any business to transfer data, required for business purposes, past China’s borders only after passing a security evaluation. The rules would impose a legal requirement on internet providers to cooperate with enforcement agencies’ counter-terrorism and criminal investigations by providing data deemed relevant.[3]  They would also require network operators to accept government supervision and to “comply with social morals.”[4]

The proposed cyber security regulations affect international business to varying degrees, but would have the greatest impact on domestic Chinese businesses and Chinese citizens. Chinese citizens would be required to store all their personal information as well as their business information on Chinese servers.[5]

These new security rules would grant the Chinese government even greater control over their citizens’ private lives and information, limiting both what they can see from the rest of the world and how they can interact with that world.

 

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-business-groups-appeal-to-china-over-cybersecurity-law-2016-8

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-business-groups-appeal-to-china-over-cybersecurity-law-2016-8

[3] http://fortune.com/2016/08/17/china-cybersecurity-law-foreign-business/

[4] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-cyber-lawmaking-idUSKCN0ZD1E4

[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-cyber-lawmaking-idUSKCN0ZD1E4

Microsoft’s Battle: Privacy Up in the Clouds

By: Cecilia Santostefano

It’s no surprise that we live in a world largely permeated by technology. It influences how we live – from the developing industries to the outlets we use to communicate with each other. However, rapid increases in the use of technology, particularly the internet, raise privacy concerns. After all, the right to privacy is greatly valued by Americans.

While whistleblower Edward Snowden fixated his concerns on computer hackers, so-called Big Brother is the more relevant privacy concern today.[1] Back in 2013, the Department of Justice served Microsoft with a court order to hand over e-mail communications that the company stored outside of the United States.[2] This is similar to Apple’s face-off with the DOJ from early 2016.[3] Microsoft’s response was two-fold. First, customers trust the cloud. If customers don’t believe their communications are secure from government viewing, then that risks the use and, ultimately, the success of the cloud.[4] Second, the government requires what is known as a ‘secrecy order’ when conducting its electronic investigations. A secrecy order compels Microsoft to keep information regarding ongoing investigations secret from its customers for a certain period of time; typically one to three months.[5] This delayed notification concerned Microsoft, who feared this provided the government with a means to continue searching customer information without a specific reason.[6] The latter claim is the basis for Microsoft’s lawsuit against the DOJ.[7]

In early September, sizeable entities including Google, Amazon, and Snapchat joined Microsoft’s DOJ-resistant efforts.[8] Other civil liberty groups like The Washington Post also stand united with Microsoft.[9] The allies believe their customers “do not give up their rights [to privacy] when they move their private information from physical storage to the cloud.”[10] While Microsoft executives have agreed secrecy orders are necessary under certain conditions where government investigations cannot be compromised, the corporation retains an emphasis on the importance of privacy.[11]

 

[1] See Jennifer Schlesinger, Is Big Brother really watching you?, CNBC, (June 3, 2014, 9:08 AM), http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/03/is-big-brother-really-watching-you.html.

[2] David Goldman, Microsoft is fighting the DOJ too, CNN, (Feb. 23, 2016, 6:52 PM), http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/23/technology/microsoft-ireland-case/.

[3] Mikey Campbell, DOJ confirms successful iPhone data extraction, withdraws encryption case against Apple, Apple Insider, (Mar. 28, 2016, 2:47 PM), http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/28/doj-to-withdraw-san-bernardino-iphone-court-action-suggests-discovery-of-successful-bypass.

[4] See Nick Wingfield, Microsoft’s Challenge to Government Secrecy Wins Dozens of Supporters, NY Times, (Sept. 2, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/technology/microsofts-challenge-to-government-secrecy-wins-dozens-of-supporters.html?ref=technology&_r=0.

[5] Wingfield, supra note 4.

[6] Id.

[7] Sarah McBride, Microsoft sues U.S. government over data requests, Reuters, (Apr. 15, 2016, 8:48 AM), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-privacy-idUSKCN0XB22U.

[8] Wingfield, supra note 4.

[9] Id.

[10] Jose Pagliery, Microsoft sues government for secret searches, CNN, (Apr. 14, 2016, 4:08 PM), http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/14/technology/microsoft-secret-search-lawsuit/.

[11] See Wingfield, supra note 4.

“Blurred Lines” in the World of Copyright: What Does the Latest Appeal Mean for The Music Industry?

By: Caitlin Holland

We have all heard the anecdote that all songs include the same three notes. Musicians often cite the lates and greats as “inspiration” for the latest pop song making the radio rounds. But how far can “inspiration” go before it is considered a crime? How much of a song is copied for it to be considered substantially similar rather than just in the same genre? Where do we draw the line between inspiration and stealing?

In the world of Copyright litigation, the line between inspiration and copying is becoming more and more blurred thanks to a recent decision that is opening the proverbial floodgates of litigation. Famous recording artists who have been parties to copyright infringement claims this year include Robin Thicke and Pharrell[1], Ed Sheeran[2], Sam Smith[3], Hans Zimmer[4], and Led Zeppelin[5].

The litigation of the “Blurred Lines” case between the family of Marvin Gaye, copyright owners of Gaye’s song “Got to Give it Up,” and Robin Thicke, Pharrell and T.I. is probably the most noteworthy. In the highly publicized decision set down last year in California, the damage award set a record high in a copyright case at $7.4 million, reduced to $5.3 million. Most notably, the substantial similarity that lead the judge to rule that there was infringement of Gaye’s copyright was the extrinsic and intrinsic similarities. The test for extrinsic similarities employs expert testimony to determine whether the works share similar expressions. Intrinsic similarity is shown if an ordinary, reasonable listener would conclude that the total concept and feel of the works are substantially similar.[6] In this case the plaintiff’s expert brought forth examples of material appropriated by the “Blurred Lines” creators cited as “the pulse that runs through the song.”[7] The jury made the decision that the “feel” of the two works bore sufficient similarity to conclude that there had been an infringement. [8]

Last month, 200 musicians filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals expressing their concern about the ruling in the “Blurred Lines” case.[9] The musicians cite a possible chilling effect saying that the ruling could have an “adverse impact on their own creativity, on the creativity of future artists, and on the music industry in general, if the judgment is allowed to stand.”[10] The brief submitted by the artists states that reducing the similarities of the two works to simply a “feel” or “vibe” reduces the copyright to an idea, which is not a copyrightable medium of expression.[11] Rather than on the substantial similarity of the notes, words, and arrangement, the song was found in violation of Marvin Gaye’s copyright based on the stylistic and atmospheric influence.

The verdict in this case has expanded the scope of copyright protection to abstract ideas and feelings, contrary to the very language of The 1976 Copyright Act. If this appeal fails, the 9th Circuit may effectuate an unwelcome change to the music industry as we know it.

 

[1] Williams v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97262 (9th Cir. 2015).

[2]Musician Ed Sheeran Faces Copyright Lawsuit Over ‘Thinking Out Loud,’ Reuters, Aug. 10, 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-edsheeran-lawsuit-idUSKCN10L04X ; Piya Shinha-Roy, Ed Sheeran Faces $20 Million Copyright Lawsuit over ‘Photograph’, Rueters, June 9, 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-edsheeran-lawsuit-idUSKCN0YU2R4

[3] Daniel Kreps, Sam Smith on Petty Settlement: ‘Similarities’ But ‘Complete Coincidence,’ Rolling Stone, Jan. 26, 2016,http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith–tom-petty-settlement-20150126

[4]Hans Zimmer Wins Copyright Lawsuit & An Apology, Billboard, Aug. 25, 2016, http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7487729/hans-zimmer-wins-copyright-lawsuit-apology

[5] Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51006 (9th Cir. 2016).

[6] Williams, supra at 52.

[7] Id. at 68.

[8] Id.

[9] More Than 200 Musicians Support ‘Blurred Lines’ Appeal – The Associate Press – http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/08/31/us/ap-us-blurred-lines-song-dispute.html

[10] Brief of 212 Songwriters, Musicians, and Producers as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Frankie Christian Gaye, et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97262 (2015)(No. 15-56880), available at https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/3/15-56880/009028333811.pdf.

[11] 17 U.S.C. 106 (1976).