Please let me know if you're looking for pro bono counsel - I have pretty good connections with good lawyers, and might be able to help you find someone. David Post
... when you wrote that the first sale doctrine allows Haupt to sell this tape to anyone who wants to buy it. It's true that there was no "first sale" by the copyright owner here - but the first sale doctrine does not require that. What is says is that "the owner of a copy lawfully made" can dispose of that copy without authorization. A copy can be lawfully made even without authorization from the copyright owner - if, e.g., it was a "fair use" to make the copy.
Here's what the House Report accompanying the 76 Copyright Act said: "To come within the scope of section 109(a), a copy or phonorecord must have been "lawfully made under this title," though not necessarily with the copyright owner's authorization. For example, any resale of an illegally "pirated" phonorecord would be an infringement, but the disposition of a phonorecord legally made under the compulsory licensing provisions of section 115 would not."
I read this statute and the government's description and there's nothing about judges deciding whether parodies are "funny". Not sure there's anything here.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by David Post.
Blog posting on the lawsuit
Mike:
Thought you might find my take on this lawsuit interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/12/gawker-techdirt-and-the-first-amendment-under-fire
Please let me know if you're looking for pro bono counsel - I have pretty good connections with good lawyers, and might be able to help you find someone.
David Post
Mike, you were right the first time ...
... when you wrote that the first sale doctrine allows Haupt to sell this tape to anyone who wants to buy it. It's true that there was no "first sale" by the copyright owner here - but the first sale doctrine does not require that. What is says is that "the owner of a copy lawfully made" can dispose of that copy without authorization. A copy can be lawfully made even without authorization from the copyright owner - if, e.g., it was a "fair use" to make the copy.
Here's what the House Report accompanying the 76 Copyright Act said:
"To come within the scope of section 109(a), a copy or phonorecord must have been "lawfully made under this title," though not necessarily with the copyright owner's authorization. For example, any resale of an illegally "pirated" phonorecord would be an infringement, but the disposition of a phonorecord legally made under the compulsory licensing provisions of section 115 would not."
funny parodies
I read this statute and the government's description and there's nothing about judges deciding whether parodies are "funny". Not sure there's anything here.