From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: S893 - Copyright infringement a felony
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:57:43 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Nov18.081414.4874@netcom.com>, tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. 
Tenney) writes:
> And 2319(c) limits which exclusive rights we're talking about
> (to 106(1) and (3) only excluding derivative works, performances,
> and public displays).


2319(c) did not limit which rights to which 2319 as a whole applies.  It only 
serves to define the terms used in 2319(b) which would otherwise be undefined 
in Title 18.  Here's how 2319(c) looked prior to its recent update:

      (c) As used in this section--

       (1) the terms "sound recording", "motion picture", "audiovisual
      work", "phonorecord", and "copies" have, respectively, the 
      meanings set forth in section 101 (relating to definitions) of 
      title 17; and

       (2) the terms "reproduction" and "distribution" refer to the 
      exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1) and (3)  
      respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in 
      copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 118, of 
      title 17.

In no way does this subsection limit 2319(b)(3).

> I remember that being added solely for the record and movie companies.
> It's interesting that 2319(b) (1) and (2) explicitly cover movies
> and records, but that (3) is just a generic "anything else".  This may
> be asking too much of our legislators, but perhaps they meant that since
> (1) and (2) were well defined -- but covering numbers of copies --
> they obviously meant that (3) was intended to cover similar violations
> but of lesser quantities.

In the absence of some pretty persuasive legislative history, I don't think 
that that conclusion is correct;  but I've seen less likely interpretations 
from judges of other laws, so who knows?

> 
> If you are correct that 2319(b)(3) is in force for ALL OTHER INFRINGEMENTS,
> then -- if you make a single photocopy of a page from Newsweek, you could
> be fined $25,000.

Well, remember that it still has to meet the requirements if 17 USC 506(a) -- 
willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

> No, I think we're missing something here.  Then
> again, I love a law that makes virtually 100% of the population
> potential felons (let's see, I'm sure that almost everyone has
> made some photocopy of a magazine article instead of BUYING an
> extra issue -- read that as private financial gain).

I don't think that definition of "private fiancial gain" would fly.  However, 
I do agree with you that the law, as it stood prior to PL102-561, is unduely 
harsh, and that may have been part of the impetus to reframe it.

I should add to all this that, from my side, anyways, I've been limited to 
looking only at the text of the statute.  Maybe some cases interpreting it 
would shed some light.


Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky misc.legal.computing:2300 comp.org.eff.talk:7152 misc.int-property:1481