1. Andrew Pequignot

    Interesting. It appears that the Court determined that both subsections were preempted. Many states have similar "labeling" statutes. The last time I looked at the issue, all of the courts that had reviewed a state labeling statute had ruled that there was no preemption. The issue received a lot of publicity in Georgia a couple years ago when DJ Drama was charged under the Georgia labeling statute. I co-authored an article for Copyright World on the topic, which is available here: http://kilpatrickstockton.com/~/media/Files/artic….

  2. Nice post. The Ohio court was not exactly alone. Last November 19, the Illinois Supreme Court did the same thing (alright, it was CDs of sound recordings) in People v. Williams, 235 Ill.2d 178, 920 N.E.2d 446 (2009). I wrote an article about that case which was published by the IL State Bar Assn in the 6/10 issue of their IP newsletter. (I am now the chair of the IP Section this year.) Here is a link, hope it works: http://www.isba.org/sections/ip/newsletter/2010/0

  3. The IL statute held to be preempted in Williams was 720 ILCS 5/16-7, which is the state anti-piracy provision. Williams had also been convicted under 5/16-8, the labeling statute, but his appeal of that issue to the IL Supreme Court concerned challenges based only on free speech and due process.
    My article proposed that the IL statute be amended to conform to the federal Copyright Act. I drafted such a bill, and it is now pending in Springfield. With passage, the IL statute will apply, with respect to sound recordings, only to those recorded prior to 2/15/72. That was the effective date of the federal Sound Recordings Act of 1971, which first extended some exclusive rights to sound recordings.

Comments are closed.

Did you enjoy this post? Then please share it with your friends and colleagues: