Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Buy/Burn/Return' May Violate Copyright Law
“Buy It, Burn It, Return It” is the policy recently adopted by a record chain in New Jersey. A radio ad for another retail store states: “You find it, you buy it, you burn it. What, I mean, not really burn it. You know. Put it in your iPod or MP3. And then sell it back. That's right: we'll buy your CDs back.” The retailer can then sell the recording as used, over and over again, buying it back for less than the selling price and profiting perhaps even more than by selling it only one time.
The problem with these “new” record-retail tactics is that they clearly violate the rights of sound-recording and musical-composition copyright owners to control the rental distribution of their works. Although not originally part of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, Congress passed the Record Rental Amendment of 1984 at the urging of the recording industry, which viewed the combination of a growing number of rental stores and the potentially unlimited number of high-quality copies made from rental CDs as a threat. (The original Record Rental legislation had a sunset clause for the law to expire in 1989. The Sunset Provision was extended 8 years in 1988 (P.L. No. 100-617, 102 Stat. 3194). The Record Rental clause became a permanent part of the Copright law when the sunset provision was eliminated entirely as part of the NAFTA Implementation Act in 1993 (P.L. No. 103-182 Sec. 332, 107 Stat. 2057.))
Copyright owners have the right to control the distribution of copies of their works to the public. However, that right ends for most works as soon as the copy is sold for the first time. The owner of a particular copy of a work may then further dispose of that copy as he or she wishes under the “First Sale Doctrine,” 17 U.S.C. Sec. 109(a).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?