College copy shop (ccs) compiles, copies, and sells reading materials to students on the instructions of their professors, who indicate which parts of which publications should be included. these include texts published by deep topics, inc. ccs does not obtain the permission of deep topics, or any of the other original publishers of the copied materials, and does not pay royalties on the sales of the compilations. deep topics and others file a suit against ccs, alleging infringement of the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights. which type of intellectual property is involved in this situation? what is ccs's likely defense? how is a court most likely to rule? explain.

1- "Copyright infringement" is the intelectual property involved in the case.

2- CCS would probably try to allegue "fair use" of the material associated with a "first sale" right to proceed (both very weak arguing considering strong evidence against CCS).

3- Court would probably rule the situation in favor of the demander Deep Topics - although situation looks commonplace -, for reasons as below:

Explanation: What grounds legal appeal to the case is the fact that CCS not only copies (enough infringing, but somehow tolerable depending on the limit), but compiles - from different sources of the same editorial company - and sells these materials: these are aggravating circumstances, for it reveals the "purpose" is simply profit, the "amount" of material copied and distributed vast, causing at least microregional "sale loss/decrease" to the original producer.

  Also, it is unsustainable to argue that CCS copying was not "intentional", nor appropriate is to say that it was "first selling" lawfully copies (as dozens were made) neither could it even speculate  Deep Topics INC. made a "late claim" violating legal prescriptional deadline. Lasts practically no legal appeal except, maybe, for an off-court settlement on "cease and desist" talk, but seems unprobable once the demander has already filed a suit to claim for its losses (and agreements do not result in any extraordinary financial compensation),  leading an observer to believe that Deep Topics would not decline judicialization.

They used standardized brick sizes of 1 × 2 × 4 (10 x 20 x 40 cm)

Explanation:

Harappa masonry areas spread around a central depression that could represent a reservoir or reservoir. Likewise, each mound is surrounded by massive brick walls with paved aisles.The front door was only 2.8 meters wide, but that was enough  for the cars to pass.