Re: Re: Statute of limitations on copyright infringement

At 12:00 PM -0400 4/11/06, John T. Mitchell wrote:
>>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.

Sec. 109(d) would answer this question, except for the limitation, "from the copyright owner."

(d) The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (c) do not, unless authorized by the copyright owner, extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord /from the copyright owner/, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.

I think the significance of the limitation is that, as in the hypothetical, it stops being a copyright issue when there isn't copyright holder who has standing to challenge ownership. Thus, for purposes of the radio station hypo, the radio station's right "to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy," includes the right to decide whether it was borrowed, abandoned, lost, or stolen. In any event, unless it's recovered, it has been "otherwise dispose[d] of," and whatever law governs the thief's right to resell the recording, it isn't restricted by the Copyright Act.

 From a property law or criminal law perspective, the fact that the limitations period has run on the theft doesn't make the thief an "owner." He might escape the theft charge, only to find himself charged with selling stolen property. The buyer, of course, is receiving stolen property. This is why you can't steal the Mona Lisa, wait for the SOL to run, and then advertise it for sale on Craigs List.

John Noble Received on Wed Apr 12 2006 - 00:00:01 GMT