Re: Re: Statute of limitations on copyright infringement

On Apr 10, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Terry Carroll wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
>
>> My question is: Am I wrong about the statute of
>> limitations on copyright infringement?
>
> I don't think copyright infringement applies to these facts.
>
> In the facts stated, the guy stole some LP records from a radio
> station.
> That's theft, and not an infringement of copyright. It does not
> implicate
> the section 106(3) distribution right, because that right is
> limited to
> distribution to the public. Simply stealing a copy or phonorecord,
> and
> thereby "distributing" it to yourself, is not a distribution to the
> public.

This raises a fascinating question for me. I agree that the facts (mere theft) do not support any infringement of copyright. The advice indicated that a distribution (to the public) would occur if they were donated to charity. While this is true, the Section 109(a) right permits the distribution by the "owner" of a lawfully made copy. The question that comes to my mind is when, if ever, does a thief become an owner? Once the statue of limitations for theft and for any civil cause of action runs, presumably the radio station could not get them back.

The SOL may not begin to run until the radio station discovers that the DJ stole them, but suppose the DJ confesses and the radio station does nothing. Once the SOL runs, is the DJ free to redistribute them under Section 109(a)? I would think so because the copyright owner is certainly not the owner of the stolen albums, and the radio station would have given up any right to reclaim them by virtue of the running of the SOL. Public policy would seem to favor broad dissemination by allowing the thief to distribute them. Any other thoughts.

John

John T. Mitchell
http://interactionlaw.com Received on Tue Apr 11 2006 - 20:00:31 GMT