tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post116308015941142157..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Right of ImpoundmentWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1163811114444452582006-11-17T19:51:00.000-05:002006-11-17T19:51:00.000-05:00Thanks, Zvi, that act is quite a resourceThanks, Zvi, that act is quite a resourceWilliam Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1163487314238593892006-11-14T01:55:00.000-05:002006-11-14T01:55:00.000-05:00The Treloar Copyright Bill of 1896 (first version ...The Treloar Copyright Bill of 1896 (first version was 54 HR 5976) contained provisions for impoundment (at s 16 of the original bill):<BR/><BR/><I>copies, of any copyrighted article, in violation of this act...shall be seized by the government authorities, and...immediately forwarded to the Copyright department in Washington, DC, and forthwith be totally destroyed.</I><BR/><BR/>The bill never passed, but since I've spent much time with it lately, I thought it would be relevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1163290107171619232006-11-11T19:08:00.000-05:002006-11-11T19:08:00.000-05:00LBK:I have encountered the word "wood" in a differ...LBK:<BR/><BR/>I have encountered the word "wood" in a different context.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1163126589423156782006-11-09T21:43:00.000-05:002006-11-09T21:43:00.000-05:00I agree that as a pretrial civil remedy, discretio...I agree that as a pretrial civil remedy, discretion on 503(b) relief is perfectly appropriate. (Whether it would be an abuse of discretion to refuse some sort of 503(b) relief post-judgment regarding infringing copies still in the hands of the infringer is an open question, IMHO.)<BR/><BR/>The criminal issue is rather pithy. I don't doubt that a court might strain to say that 506(b) shouldn't reach infringing copies in the hands of innocent third parties . . . but what's the intellectually-honest reason for so holding? The statute is absolute and leaves no wiggle room: the infringing copies "shall" be ordered destroyed. No discretion allowed, unless "shall" is not given its ordinary meaning.<BR/><BR/>There's clearly a public policy reason here . . . any further sale would likely be an act of further criminal behavior, and so the infringing articles should be removed from the stream of commerce. If a court is going to depart from the plain reading of the statute -- especially where there is a perfectly plausible public policy reason for it -- then I contend that a court should have to explain itself better than "I just don't think it's fair."<BR/><BR/>Does this put the wood to innocent purchasers? Of course, but that's hardly alien to copyright law: there's no "innocent purchaser" or BFP defense to civil copyright liability, and "innocent purchasers" get it in the neck all the time. <BR/><BR/>LKB in HoustonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1163097701912344082006-11-09T13:41:00.000-05:002006-11-09T13:41:00.000-05:00LBK, the impoundment stuff I thought of as being r...LBK, the impoundment stuff I thought of as being relevant before trial, and so a discretionary remedy seems particularly appropriate. After a crimial conviction, shall seems OK, but I think the larger point you are making is does Section 506(b) also reach innocent third-parties. I think this court would say no.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1163097507428957022006-11-09T13:38:00.000-05:002006-11-09T13:38:00.000-05:00Note also the provision of 506(b), which provides ...Note also the provision of 506(b), which provides that where a defendant is convicted of criminal copyright infringement, the court "shall" order the forfeiture and destruction of the infringing copies and the equipment used to create it.<BR/><BR/>Point and query: wouldn't this *require* a recall and destruction order in the wake of a criminal conviction, even as to infringing copies in the hands of BFP's? If not, what part of the statute creates the loophole?<BR/><BR/>LKB in HoustonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com