Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 3/9/2010 5:01 PM, RJack wrote:
> > U.S. federal district courts ignore CAFC copyright decisions
>
> There is no reason to believe that other courts would decide the
> matter differently, since CAFC made the correct analysis of the
> situation.

Yeah... especially the Supreme Court:

"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial
system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts
may think it to be."; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).


"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement
unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive
rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth
Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155."
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
464 U.S. 417 (1984). See also:

"Accordingly, if an unlicensed use of a copyrighted work
does not conflict with an 'exclusive' right conferred by the
statute, it is no infringement of the holder's rights.";
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975).

ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)