United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Dedicated to resolving the Circuit Court of Appeals "Copyright law" Divergence of rules. Music producer Sherman．Neely (Sherman Nealy) Hoping to trace Warner's damages back to10Years ago, During this time, the music producer was jailed for drug trafficking. Lawyer claims, The problem of damages is copyright damage "crux" .

SCOTUSin2024years2month21Yesterday heard arguments in a central case, The case could clarify how long copyright lawsuits can be pursued, And could change the rules on the burden of proof.

Warner Chappell MusicCompany directionSCOTUSFile an appeal, Seeking review of a decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Rapper and music producer Sherman．Neliko happened right before the lawsuit3Compensation for years of infringement.

This is against "Copyright law" On the statute of limitations for civil action "Form an accumulation rule (discovery accrual rule) " ——But the justices are currently debating whether there are grounds to violate that rule.

The point is, in2014yearsPetrellaOn the interpretation of MGM, The circuit Court of Appeals was clearly divided, before, SCOTUSProhibited on pre-lawsuit3More than a year of infringement claims.

Nilihu2018years12Monthly indictmentWarner Chappell Musiccorporation, Accused of assault by Tony．Butler (Tony Butler, Alternate namePretty Tony) vocal1984Electronic punk track "Jam the Box" ——The track is copyrighted by Neely's defunct record label and co-plaintiffsMusic Specialistown.

According to Neely, Rapper and songwriter Flo．Reda (Flo Rida, Alternate nameTramar Dillar) whereupon2008Years of composition of the song "In the Ayer" Medium adoption (Or blend in) the "Jam the Box" Element of.

Neely is asking for damages to be retroactive to10Years ago, In part because he was selling cocaine1989The year to date2008He served nearly three years in prison20years, until2016Only became aware of the alleged infringement.

The Circuit Court of Appeals split led to "Alternative action"

Barrie the lawyer．Werbin (Barry Werbin) Commenting on the case, noted: "Whatever the court concludes on this issue, On this critical issue of copyright damages, Create a unity among the circuit courts of appeals, Consistent standards are urgently needed. "

He points out, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals currently allow lawsuits to be filed after a plaintiff first knew or should have known about their claim, Not subject to legal action for damages3Limitation of the limitation period of years.

By contrast, The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that, "Copyright law" Limiting the statute of limitations for damages only before a copyright infringement action is filed3Within the term of a year.

Verbin representation: "The growing division of the circuit courts of Appeals will inevitably lead to alternative litigation and different damages awards in copyright cases. " This, in turn, makes it more difficult to resolve such cases as early as possible in infringement cases, based on an informed assessment of the potential maximum damages.

infringement "impunity"

Mr. Verbin added, Within the jurisdiction of courts that abide by the position of the Second Circuit, defendant "You could call it a brazen infringement, Because they know that if the behavior is discovered, Their tort liability will be limited to3A period of years to Sue for damages. "

The question for the court to resolve is this, "accumulation" One word——As it appears in "Copyright law" In the statute of limitations clause——Does it also limit the period of recourse for assessing damages, Despite these two concepts (Limitation of time for filing lawsuits and monetary damages including the defendant's profits) in "Copyright law" The two are treated separately, The limitation period is not mentioned in the monetary damages clause.

Verbin points out, The Supreme Court's conservative stance could be limiting.

He says: "On account ofSCOTUSIs responsible for interpreting the provisions of the statute law, Rather than expanding it for other purposes, So the court's conservative bloc seems likely to conclude——The statutory limitation period for bringing a lawsuit only limits the time for prosecution. "

He added, This does not affect the assessment of the time limit for prosecution under independent statutory damages relief provisions, Because these terms do not specify any time limit for prosecution.

"This is particularly striking, Because according to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, The plaintiff who found the infringement if3Filed suit during the year, There is a risk of losing meaningful damages, This is actually held against the defendant over a longer period of time 'Silence' Reward of. "

Work outPetrellaThe differences in the case are on the table

Robins KaplanLaw firm partner William．Mansker (Robins Kaplan) consider, The Supreme Court seems likely to settle and clarifyPetrellaDifference of case.

He points out: "The justices' views on the case will largely predict the final decision. "

inPetrellaIn the case, The Supreme Court stated in its decision, Statute of limitations "Forbidden pair3The statute of limitations for any form of relief for acts that occurred before the statute of limitations" , Damages in a copyright action "To predate the filing of a lawsuit3Within the year" .

But Manske explains, The Circuit courts of Appeals were divided over the Supreme Court's interpretation of that language. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals inSohmvScholasticThe case held that, The plaintiff can only speak before the lawsuit3Compensation for copyright infringement during the year, Even in the application of formation rules (discovery rule) The same is true of the case.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals inStarz EntvMGM Domestic Television DistribHold in the case, PetrellaThe case does not limit the statute of limitations for damages before the lawsuit3Within the year, Because of this explanation "It breaks the rules of formation" .

Manske also points out, PetrellaThe case is relatively recent, Casting a majority vote on the ruling6One of the judges4The name (Alito, Kagan, Thomas and Sotomayor) Still on the bench.

Unlimited liability

He added: "The court's decision should serve to clarify and clarify the parameters of copyright damages. Or severely limit the time limit for damages, Either in application 'Formation rule' On the basis of more case studies. "

"We'll be watching oral arguments, To understand the justice vsWarner Chappell MusicThe level of acceptance of policy arguments raised by companies and amicus curiae. "

"The recurring theme of amicus curiae, 'The decision of the lower court' Would give rise to unlimited liability, This could have a chilling effect on the use of public goods, And embolden the copyright giants. "

He added, The case will "And other recent copyright cases before the Supreme Court——Google vs. Oracle (2021years) The case and Andy．Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith (2023years) case——Makes an interesting contrast, These cases all relate to the concept of copyright in the digital age" .

The Supreme Court's opinion is expected6Announced at the end of the month. (Be compiled fromwww. worldipreview. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wu Xian　proofread: Wang Dan



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.