Re: New section 512

On Wed, Nov 25, 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Jessica Litman <litman[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > One of my copyright students stumped me this morning with a question
> > -- Both the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Public L.
> > 105-298, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public L. 105-304,
> > purport to add a new section 512 to title 17. (I was embarrassed to
> > confess that I hadn't noticed the duplication.)
>
> You think that's bad, there are 4 sections 101(1) and 101(2), and three
> sections 101(3).
>
> > In any event, as my student put it, "Which is the right section
> > 512?" and "What's the other one called?"
>
> PL 105-298 came first (October 27, compared to PL105-304's oct. 28),
> so I'd call its contribution "the First Section 512" and the other
> "the Second Section 512." Until Congress someday gets around to
> making another technical corrections bill, anyway. ("life+70? Shoot,
> we meant life+170!")

Terry has correctly stated the general rule followed by the Judiciary Committee's law revision counsel when Congress enacts provisions with duplicative numbering: the first enacted provision (i.e. that with the first assigned public law number) will appear first in the U.S.C.

However, several other rules are likely to be applied in this situation. First, the effective date of the term extension bill's section 512 is 90 days from enactment. The DMCA's section 512 was effective upon enactment. As a result, so say law revision counsel, it is likely that the DMCA's section 512 will appear as the first section 512. This is made more likely, again according to law revision counsel, by the drafting of laws' instructions for placement of the amendments. The DMCA instructs that its section 512 be added "after section 511..." The term extension bill instructs that Chapter 5 be "amended by adding at the end the following:"

Interesting.

Susan Mann
<mann[_at_]jsdks.com> Received on Wed Nov 25 1998 - 15:22:27 GMT