Facts
- Ticketmaster Corporation and Ticket Online–CitySearch, Inc. sold tickets online and maintained event-specific interior webpages containing event details and ticketing information.
- Tickets.com, a competing service, listed event information broadly and, where Ticketmaster was the exclusive vendor, provided “deep links” that sent users directly from Tickets.com to Ticketmaster’s interior event pages to complete purchases on Ticketmaster’s site.
- From about 1998 to mid-2001, Tickets.com used an automated “spider” to access Ticketmaster’s interior pages, temporarily downloading pages into RAM to read source code and extract factual event data (dates, times, venue locations).
- Tickets.com used the extracted facts on its own site but discarded Ticketmaster’s expressive content (e.g., logos, advertisements, layout) and did not display that content to the public.
- Ticketmaster pursued three theories: (1) breach of Ticketmaster’s online “Terms and Conditions” allegedly prohibiting deep linking and spidering; (2) copyright infringement based on temporary RAM copying, use of Ticketmaster URLs, and deep linking; and (3) trespass to chattels based on automated access burdening Ticketmaster’s computer systems.
- The court considered Tickets.com’s motion for summary judgment on the contract, copyright, and trespass claims.
Issues
- Whether Tickets.com was bound by Ticketmaster’s website “Terms and Conditions” under a browsewrap theory requiring sufficient notice and assent.
- Whether temporary RAM copying of Ticketmaster webpages by a spider, solely to extract unprotectable factual information while discarding expressive content, constituted actionable copyright infringement or was fair use.
- Whether Ticketmaster’s interior-page URLs were sufficiently original to receive copyright protection.
- Whether deep linking to Ticketmaster’s interior pages constituted an infringing public display of Ticketmaster’s copyrighted works.
- Whether automated spidering constituted trespass to chattels absent evidence of material impairment to Ticketmaster’s computer systems.
Decision
- Summary judgment was denied on the contract claim because triable issues remained regarding Tickets.com’s knowledge of, and assent to, the posted terms.
- Summary judgment was granted for Tickets.com on all remaining copyright claims; those claims were dismissed.
- Summary judgment was granted for Tickets.com on trespass to chattels due to lack of evidence that Tickets.com’s access adversely affected the use or utility of Ticketmaster’s computers.
Legal Principles
- A browsewrap agreement may be enforceable where the user has actual knowledge that website use is conditioned on binding terms; disputed notice or knowledge can preclude summary judgment on contract formation.
- Intermediate, temporary copying into RAM to extract unprotected factual information can constitute fair use when the copyrighted expressive material is not exploited and is promptly discarded.
- URLs, as publicly available functional addresses, generally lack the originality required for copyright protection.
- Deep linking, without copying or hosting the plaintiff’s content, does not by itself constitute a “public display” by the linking party where the target site serves and displays its own pages.
- Trespass to chattels involving automated online access requires proof of cognizable interference, such as measurable impairment or adverse effect on the plaintiff’s computer systems; mere access is insufficient.
Conclusion
The court allowed Ticketmaster’s contract theory to proceed because factual disputes remained about notice and assent to posted terms, but it rejected copyright and trespass theories, holding that factual-data extraction via temporary RAM copying was fair use, URLs were not protectable, deep linking was not a public display by the linker, and no actionable system impairment was shown.