Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSE AURELIO OIDOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2013-09-05
Citations: 258 Or. App. 459
Docket Number: 090833172; A145040
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSE AURELIO OIDOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Duncan, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 258
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed January 23, appellant’s response to petition for reconsideration filed February 26, and respondent’s reply to appellant’s response to petition for reconsideration filed March 4,
reconsideration allowed; former opinion (254 Or App 12,292 P3d 629 (2012)) modified and adhered to as modified September 5, 2013,
petition for review denied February 13, 2014 (354 Or 814)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSE AURELIO OIDOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
090833172; A145040
310 P3d 671
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, for petition.
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for response.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Duncan, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The state has petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in this case, seeking clarification of our holding about the preemptive effect of section 301 of the federal Copyright Act, 17 USC § 301, on ORS 164.865(1)(b). The clarification that it seeks is confirmation that section 301 preempts the Oregon statute only for sound recordings that were fixed on or after February 15, 1972. We grant reconsideration and modify our opinion by adding the following footnote to the last full sentence at 254 Or App at 20:
"The Copyright Act does not preempt state laws with respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15,1972. 17 USC § 301(c). In the present case, the state did not contend that the sound recordings at issue fell within that exception."
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.