Now residing in the "Unusual Case Names" file is this recent sentencing opinion from the Ninth Circuit.
If you enjoy double entendre, why not take the Case Name Challenge?
Posted by AZ on May 27, 2005 09:15 AM | TrackBackIn Luck's Music Library, Inc. and Moviecraft, Inc. v. Alberto Gonzales, the D.C. Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of the U.S. Attorney General on the constitutionality of § 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), codified at 17 U.S.C. § 104A. The contested section of the URAA "establishes copyrights of foreign holders whose works, though protected under the law where initially published, fell into the public domain in the United States for a variety of reasons..." Essentially, this law revoked works from the public domain and granted them copyright protection.
At issue are scores of foreign sheet music and commercial archival footage distributed by U.S. companies that operated under the assumption that a work in the public domain, stays in the public domain. Not so, said Senior Circuit Judge Williams, who listed several historical instances where the government has extended copyright protection for works that would have otherwise been part of the public domain.
The Luck's Music opinion draws many parallels between petitioners' arguments and those unsuccessfully advanced in Eldred v. Ashcroft, a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations in enlarging the duration of copyrights under the Copyright Term Extension Act. [See Eldred's complete docket information]
In a telling passage, the Luck's Music decision sheds light on the impetus behind Section 514 of the URAA. "The Senate argued in support of § 514 that its adoption helped secure better foreign protection for US intellectual property and was “a significant opportunity to reduce the impact of copyright piracy on our world trade position.”" This suggests that 514 can be viewed as a bargaining chip thrown to foreign nations when the US petitioned for international adoption and enforcement of American-standard intellectual property laws.
Read in tandem with Elrded, Luck's Music further illustrates how the public domain has been reduced by contemporary IP trends favoring ownership.
Creators who sample and businesses that distribute foreign works from the public domain would be wise to verify the copyright status of their "stock" material.
Daniel H. Bromberg of Jones Day argued the cause for appellants.
John S. Koppel of the U.S. Department of Justice argued the cause for appellees.
Posted by AZ on May 24, 2005 03:29 PM | TrackBackNew York and Michigan wine connoisseurs will be ecstatic to hear about today's Supreme Court news. In Granholm v. Heald, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated two state laws that regulate the sale of wine from out-of-state wineries to in-state consumers. Both New York and Michigan's regulations were found to discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, and that discrimination is neither authorized nor permitted by Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment, which allows a state to establish its own liquor control laws.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who delivered the Majority opinion stated, "The details and mechanics of the two regulatory schemes differ, but the object and effect of the laws are the same: to allow in-state wineries to sell wine directly to consumers in that State but to prohibit out-of-state wineries from doing so, or, at the least, to make direct sales impractical from an economic standpoint."
Docketed on December 7, 2004, Granholm v. Heald consolidated an appeal of decisions in the Courts of Appeal for the Sixth and Second Circuits. The Court affirmed the Sixth's ruling in Heald v. Engler, and reversed the Second Circuit in Swedenberg v. Kelly, which held that New York's prohibition of the direct sale and shipment of wine from unlicensed wineries to New York consumers lies within the 21st Amendment and thus is exempted from the normal operation of the Commerce Clause.
One consumer-centric outcome is that wine drinkers in New York and Michigan can now order wine directly from any California winery! So go ahead, folks, order up a case of Rutherford Merlot and rent Sideways.
Posted by AZ on May 16, 2005 12:42 PM | TrackBackIn a follow-up to the post on InternetMovies.com and the MPAA, the U.S. Supreme court has recently denied certiorari in Rossi v. MPAA, a DMCA case last heard by the Ninth Circuit in December 2004.
According to this Andrews' article, the attorney for plaintiff Michael Rossi petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that InternetMovies.com was/is an online magazine entitled to full First Amendment protections.
In an unusual move, "The MPAA waived its right to file an opposition brief." The article does not make clear whether this right was affirmatively or involuntarily waived, but it's doubtful that the filing deadline accidentally slipped by the MPAA's counsel.
Posted by AZ on May 16, 2005 09:53 AM | TrackBackToday, in American Library Association, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked the FCC's "Braodcast Flag" rules. The controversial rules required digital television receivers (DTVs) to embed code into all transmitted programs that would prevent redistribution of the programs. This code is also known as a "flag."
When the Commission enacted the broadcast flag regulations in 2003, it did so under the ancillary jurisdiction of Title I of the Communications Act of 1934. Title I states that the FCC "may exercise ancillary jurisdiction only when two conditions are satisfied: 1) the Commission's general jurisdictional grant under Title I covers the regulated subject, and 2) the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities."
The Court held that while Title I does authorize the FCC to regulate a DTV apparatus during transmission, it does not authorize regulation of an apparatus after transmission is complete. Thus, "there is no statutory foundation for the broadcast flag rules, and consequently the rules are ancillary to nothing."
End result: the FCC's Flag Order is reversed and vacated insofar as it requires demodulator products manufactured on or after July 1, 2005 to recognize and give effect to the broadcast flag.
Posted by AZ on May 6, 2005 12:02 PM | TrackBackToday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published a trademark decision in Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions. Very briefly, a surf & clothing company plaintiff, sued Survivor the TV show for infringement. This appellate decision affirmed summary judgement to Survivor on the grounds that there's no likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
This case, argued in the rugged paradise of Hawaii, marks the second federal trademark action against the Survivor Productions. The first occurred late in 2004 when Survivor the rock band unsuccessfully sued the show for infringement.
Survivor Productions appears to be 2-for-2 in the Litigation Immunity Challenge.
Andrew M. White of White O'Connor Curry & Avanzado LLP, Counsel for Survivor
Posted by AZ on May 4, 2005 12:39 PM | TrackBack