Copyright Law Ronald W. Staudt. Class 14 March 9, 2009. Winnipeg Man Faces 52 Copyright Charges After Huge CD, DVD Pirating Bust BNA's Internet Law News - 3/5/09.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Copyright Law Ronald W. Staudt
March 9, 2009
A man faces 52 charges under the federal Copyright Act after what has been called Canada's biggest CD and DVD pirating bust in a decade. Rajdeep Singh Ramgotra, 32, was arrested last March after RCMP seized more than 200,000 CDs and DVDs from Winnipeg-based Audiomaxxx.com.
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession. (2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.
is an assignment, mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.
Cohen v. Paramount
Medium Cool – “Merry Go Round”
Barsch rule of construction: "if the words are broad enough to cover the new use, it seems fairer that the burden of framing and negotiating an exception should fall on the grantor," at least when the new medium is not completely unknown at the time of contracting.”
“…intent is not likely to be helpful when the subject of the inquiry is something the parties were not thinking about.”past dealing, custom similarly useless in interpretation
“Neither the absence of a future technologies clause in the Agreement nor the presence of the reservation clause alters that analysis.”
“If a new-use license hinges on the foreseeability of the new channels of distribution at the time of contracting -- a question left open in Bartsch -- Disney has proffered unrefuted evidence that a nascent market for home viewing of feature films existed by 1939.”
“unambiguous core.” approach, favoring authors
“uses that reasonably fall within the medium” neutral approach
Exclusive right to publish the works “in book form”
Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
What is a newspaper?
What does LexisNexis display?
How is each database prepared?
What are the best analogies?
Individual articles cut out?
Is it just a matter of money?
When did the infringement occur?
What about history & research?
Supreme Court Argument
§ 501. Infringement of copyright*** (b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it.
Fantasy v. Fogarty