UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Troy Augusto, et al.

The Central District of California granted summary judgment in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Troy Augusto, No. CV 07-03106. (SJO), regarding the legality of reselling promo CDs. Mr. Augusto acquired promo CDs and resold them on eBay, which Universal alleged infringed their copyright due to the following language placed on the CDs:

This CD is the property of the record company and is licensed to the intended receipient for personal use only. Acceptance of this CD shall constitute an agreement to comply with the terms of the license. Resale or transfer of possession is not allowed and may be punishable under federal and state laws.

Augusto argued that his resale of the CDs was protected under the first sale doctrine. The court agreed.

Finally, a voice of reason in the wilderness. Thank you Judge Otero for a very well written opinion.

Here is the full opinion (pdf).

Orphan Works Bills

I haven’t gone through both new versions of the Orphan Works bills (House, Senate). However, this month the Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA published my article detailing problems with all previous versions of orphan works legislation. Here is a PDF of the article, Darrin Keith Henning, Copyright’s Deus Ex Machina: Economic Fostering of Orphan Works through Reverse Registration, 55 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y U.S.A. 201 (2008).

I will have more on the new bills next week.

S.2913 – Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008

110th CONGRESS 
2d Session 
S. 2913

To provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

April 24, 2008

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

H.R. 5889 – Orphan Works Act of 2008

Six months ago, the last version of an Orphan Works bill died in Congressional committee. Now, a new Orphan Works bill has surfaced in two different versions, one in the House and one in the Senate. Here is the House version:

---

110th CONGRESS 
2d Session 
H. R. 5889  

To provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

April 24, 2008

Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. CONYERS, and Mr. COBLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

Back . . .

Sorry, I have been slacking lately on posts as I try to make things happen at work, move houses, and grade finals. New posts on the way. -Keith

Pro-IP bill to become law in 2008?

Rep. Berman: Pro-IP bill will become law in 2008

Rep. Howard Berman, who heads a congressional panel in charge of writing copyright legislation, lashed out at Internet pirates this week and defended his effort to add stiffer anticopying penalties to federal law.
Berman, a Democrat who represents the congressional district near Hollywood, said at a technology policy conference here that he was on track to enact the so-called Pro-IP Act by the end of 2008. The bill ratchets up civil penalties for copyright infringement and creates a new federal agency charged with bringing about a national and international copyright crackdown.

“I don’t think there’s a lot of controversy,” Berman said on Wednesday. “This one is not like the patent bill.”

District Court Finds Portion of Copyright Remedy Clarification Act Unconstitutional

This month, in Marketing Information Masters v. The Trustees of the California State University (full PDF of decision here), the US Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Cal. found the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act to be unconstitutional for removing sovereign immunity for state workers working in their official capacity. The court determined that Congress exceeded its power under the 14th Amendment and that state employees retain immunity for copyright infringement.

 See also Dear Professor: “You’ve Been Sued” 

For more history, specifically the Puerto Rico case of De Romero v. Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, 2006 WL 3735352 (D.P.R. Dec. 15, 2006) in which the court also found that Congress exceeded its power under 14th Amendment, read this article by Prof. Patry, and the last paragraph of that case.