RE: Statute of limitations on copyright infringement

I've been on/off reading this discussion. It seems that SOL of copyright is being confused with SOL of theft. Also, in addition to what was said in the last response, even in the off chance that a thief came to own the copy that had been stolen, that is not the same thing as owning the copyright on that item, and at no time was this copy 'lawfully' obtained.

Just my thoughts,

Virgil E. Varvel Jr.
Illinois Online Network
University Outreach and Public Service
University of Illinois
Vvarvel[_at_]uillinois.edu

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:45:01 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-13390876[_at_]cni.org>
From: "John P. McNeill" <johnmcn[_at_]bellsouth.net> Subject: RE: [CNI-(C)] Re: Statute of limitations on copyright infringement
In-Reply-To: AAAAAFAXryMOyvFDrHuK6UlzGW8EQWAB

My recollection is that title of stolen property never passes to a thief,
nor to anyone who takes from a thief.  

-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of John T. Mitchell Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:01 PM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property Subject: [CNI-(C)] 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 Thu Apr 13 2006 - 22:45:45 GMT