Goldstein v. California

412 U.S. 546 (1973)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds were engaged in 'record piracy' or 'tape piracy' -- the unauthorized duplication of recordings of performances by major musical artists. Ds would purchase a single tape or phonograph recording of the popular performances they wished to duplicate. The recording was reproduced on blank tapes, which could in turn be used to replay the music on a tape player. The tape was then wound on a cartridge. A label was attached, stating the title of the recorded performance -- the same title as had appeared on the original recording, and the name of the performing artists. After final packaging, the tapes were distributed to retail outlets for sale to the public, in competition with those Ds had copied. A California statute forbids the transfer of any performance fixed on a tape or record onto other records or tapes with the intention of selling the duplicates, unless they have first received permission from those who, under state law, are the owners of the master recording. No limitation is placed on the use of the music, lyrics, or arrangement employed in making the master recording. Ds are not precluded from hiring their own musicians and artists and recording an exact imitation of the performance embodied on the master recording. Ds are even free to hire the same artists who made the initial recording in order to duplicate the performance. In essence, the statute provides copyright protection solely for the specific expressions which compose the master record or tape. In 1971, an information was filed by P, charging Ds in 140 counts with violating § 653h of the California Penal Code. Ds moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that § 653h was in conflict with Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution, the 'Copyright Clause,' and the federal statutes enacted thereunder. The motion was denied and Ds entered pleas of nolo contendere to 10 of the 140 counts; the remaining counts were dismissed. The decision was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Ds contend that the statute establishes a state copyright of unlimited duration, and thus conflicts with Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution. Ds contend the state statute interferes with Congress' intent to establish a uniform law throughout the United States to protect original writings. Ds claim that Congress intended to allow individuals to copy any work which was not protected by federal copyright. Since § 653h effectively prohibits the copying of works that are not entitled to federal protection, Ds contend that it conflicts directly with congressional policy and must fall under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.