The Shrinkwrap Snafu: Untangling the "Extra Element" in Breach of Contract Claims Based on Shrinkwrap Licenses

By Smith, Nathan | Brigham Young University Law Review, January 1, 2003 | Go to article overview

The Shrinkwrap Snafu: Untangling the "Extra Element" in Breach of Contract Claims Based on Shrinkwrap Licenses


Smith, Nathan, Brigham Young University Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION

In the midst of the software boom, and with so much at stake, computer software developers scrambled to protect their products from blatant copying and unscrupulous takeoffs. Ultimately, they responded by imposing restrictive licenses (shrinkwrap licenses1) upon everyone who would purchase and use their computer software. The enforcement of these licenses has fueled a great debate. Courts and commentators alike have questioned whether these licenses strip federally granted rights from the public and bestow these rights upon software developers. Courts have yet to reach a consensus on whether shrinkwrap licenses, backed by state contract law, should be preempted by federal copyright law.

However, an analysis of § 301 of the Copyright Act,2 read in light of the purposes of copyright law, shows that breach of contract claims based on shrinkwrap licenses should be preempted by copyright law. Courts denying preemption under § 301 distinguished copyright claims from contract claims by applying the "extra element" test.3 Under this test, a contract claim is not equivalent to (and thus not preempted by) a copyright claim if the contract claim requires the accuser to prove additional elements superfluous to the copyright claim. Courts have found that shrinkwrap licenses are not preempted by improperly distinguishing the contract claim with the extra element of bargain-an element that is not present in shrinkwrap licenses because the consumer has no option but to accept the license or return the software to the developer. Preemption of shrinkwrap licenses is also proper because it does not leave software developers unprotected. Under the current test for fair use found in § 107 of the Copyright Act,4 the economic interests of computer developers can be respected while allowing the public fair use of digital materials (digital fair use5). Further, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act6 (DMCA) serves the interests of software developers by prohibiting the circumvention of technological measures that developers chose to employ in protecting their software.7

Precluding preemption of breach of contract claims based on shrinkwrap licenses presents significant problems. The copyright doctrine of fair use-which permits consumers to freely use copyrighted materials for limited personal, noncommercial purposes such as archival copying, developing interoperability, or modifying computer programs-will be eviscerated if copyright law wields no preemptive power over breach of contract claims based on shrinkwrap licenses. This problem arises because while fair uses cannot constitute copyright infringement, these same uses are not insulated against breach of contract claims.8 Therefore, even though a particular use of copyrighted software is a fair use, this public right will not be a valid defense to a breach of contract claim.9 Thus, allowing breach of contract claims based on shrinkwrap licenses sets at naught the fair use doctrine and the purposes of Congress. By weighing the practical effects of the shrinkwrap licensing provisions against the purposes of copyright law, courts should be moved to invalidate such provisions.

This Comment begins by introducing the foundational principles of copyright law, including the copyright infringement standard, digital fair use, and reverse engineering, a category of fair use. Part II discusses several reasons why software developers may have been displeased with the protection available to them under copyright law, as well as the consequent advent of shrinkwrap licenses. Part III analyzes the shrinkwrap licenses under § 301 of the Copyright Act, concluding that breach of contract claims based on shrinkwrap licenses should be preempted by copyright law because these claims are substantively equivalent to copyright claims. Although some courts have distinguished breach of contract claims based on shrinkwrap licenses from copyright claims using the extra element test, these courts have inappropriately relied on the element of bargain, which is not present in shrinkwrap licenses. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Shrinkwrap Snafu: Untangling the "Extra Element" in Breach of Contract Claims Based on Shrinkwrap Licenses
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.