Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Judge excludes exhibit 4 (stack of registration documents), allows uncertified sound recordings

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, Judge Davis has sustained defendant's objection to the plaintiffs' exhibit 4 "stack" of registration documents, but overruled defendant's objection to plaintiffs' use of uncertified sound recordings and parol evidence.

June 16, 2009, Order, sustaining objection to registration documents, overruling objection to uncertain sound recordings and parol evidence

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player


Gamer Curmudgeon said...

So my question is - plaintiff argues that exhibit is not necessary because chain of ownership does not change merely due to corporate mergers and name changes. Then why did plaintiff attempt to introduce chain of ownership in the first place?

Anonymous said...

What does this mean for the trial?

raybeckerman said...

I don't know, because I'm not privy to what is being said in court.

2L student said...

The fact that the copyright office only holds on to sound recordings for five years is very interesting.

In essence there is a bit of a cloud over the real ownership of sound recordings made before about 2004!

This suggests a whole new area of law: ownership of sound recordings by adverse possession

Step 1, submit many recordings. Step 2, wait five years...

2L student

Gamer Curmudgeon said...

I have a 1947 Rock-Ola jukebox, and a good-sized collection of Classic Rock and Roll on 78RPM.

Given that it might be very very difficult for any record company to come up with an original copy (let alone the certified original copy), at what point does the copyright on these recordings become unenforceable?

Does this become the check against the ever-growing length of copyrights (ala Sonny Bono Act)?

Anonymous said...

2L student,

Note that in Plaintiffs' brief yesterday, they didn't say that all recordings were magically destroyed after 5 years, just that they might be.

And Plaintiffs didn't bother to find out. So perhaps the originals are still there.