Re: Abolish Reproduction Right

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 08:39:27 PST

On Mon, 31 Mar 97, Robert Cumbow <CUMBR[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> The fact that reproductions "are no longer tangible" should make no
> difference. One of the requirements for copyright protection is
> that the ORIGINAL COPYRIGHTED WORK be "fixed in a tangible
> medium." I don't recall any requirement that an unauthorized
> reproduction has to be tangible in order to be an infringement.

I disagree. The fixation requirement carries over into the copies.

17 U.S.C. 106(1):

"to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords."

17 U.S.C. 101:

"'Copies' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term 'copies' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed."

---

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
2L - UCLA School of Law
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/

---

Received on Tue Apr 01 1997 - 16:39:55 GMT