Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Decision of Note:</b> Record-Rent Ban Does't Apply to Literary Works
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided, in a case of first impression, that the federal ban on renting or lending sound recordings doesn't apply to audiobooks. Brilliance Audio Inc. v. Haights Cross Communications Inc., 05-1209.
Brilliance Audio filed suit over Haights' unauthorized repackaging and relabeling of Brilliance-Audio retail audiobooks as Brilliance library editions for rental, lease and lending. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's claims.
Under the copyright first-sale doctrine, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 109(a), the owner of a copy of a work generally may pass it on in any manner. But the Record Rental Amendment of 1984, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 109(b)(1)(A), states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of a copyright in the sound recording[,] … and ' in the musical works embodied therein, [ ] the owner of a particular phonorecord ' may [not], for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord ' by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.'
Affirming the district court in part, the Sixth Circuit noted: '[T]he combination of the legislative history, the context in which the statute was passed, and the policy rationales behind both Sec. 109 and copyright law in general provide strong evidence that Congress intended to exclude only sound recordings of musical works from the first sale doctrine ' At the time Congress adopted the exception in 1984, the exclusive focus of the testimony and the legislators was on protecting the music industry.'
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?