The Chapter 7 of the US Code is specifically designed to provide the information related to the issues of copyright and its legal regulations. It identifies the main principles according to which the US authorities act in order to register the materials and data. The cases Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, BMG Music v. Gonzalez, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, and Victoria Secret Catalogue v. Moseley all related to the distinct issues of information ownership, and the analysis of these cases helps to comprehend the scope of the current US legislation.
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons
According to the Copyright Act, the franchisors have an exclusive right to transfer the product copies protected by copyright for the consequent public sales; the import of the product copies bought outside the USA is regarded as the violation of owner’s rights (US Code par. 106). However, at the same time, the owner of a particular legal copy has a right to sell it without the right holder’s permission. John Willey & Sons, one of the biggest publishers in the world, won the case against the foreign student who sold online John Willey’s books bought in Thailand. It is possible to say this case contravenes the first-sale doctrine claiming that the copyright is limited with the first purchase-sale transaction of the intellectual property object.
Victoria Secret Catalogue v. Moseley
The case is focused on the controversies between the brands “Victor’s little secret” and “Victoria’s Secret.” The trademark is meant to protect the identity of the product or brand, but the similarities in trademarks provoked the disputes and judgmental attitudes between the sides. The case involves the issues of the unfair competition as well (Gearing 222). Through the imitation of competitors, the organizations attempt to attract more customers. Thus, the intentional dilution of the famous brands’ characteristic features is an illegal practice.
BMG Music v. Gonzalez
The fair use doctrine is the basis of the given issue. Cecilia Gonzales downloaded thousands of copyrighted sample songs in a week period, and BMG sued against her due to the violation of the doctrine. Dissimilation and continuous copying of information provoke many difficulties for the right holders. It is possible to say that the doctrine is rather of the ethical and rhetorical character, and the concept that is laid in the foundation of legal copyright regulation is too generalized (Reyman par. 3). On one hand, by loosening the technological control over the information, the content owners allow the evaluation and criticism of the products, but, on the other hand, it is regarded as property stealing. It is possible to presume that the policy needs to limit the scope of the fair use concept in a way it would benefit both sides.
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics
According to the legal tradition, the objects and materials of the natural origins (minerals or parts of the body), as well as the abstract ideas, cannot be patented. In the case, the court took into the consideration the fundamental issue about the legality of the gene patent. Recently, the US Supreme Court allowed patenting the “isolated and cleaned” genes as the carriers of information (Orford 564). However, the opponents of this patent practice consider that it slows down the research process and expect that the decision will be changed in the nearest future. The implications of this legal decision are far-going. From the perspective of the civil rights protectors, the patent of genes means the total monopoly on the human body and information contained in it. Moreover, it would limit the scientific and informational freedom.
Works Cited
Gearing, Brian Paul. “Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 19.1 (2004): 221-242. Print.
Orford, Jack. “Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics Inc: Are Genes Information or Molecules?” Sydney Law Review 36 (2014): 557-579. Print.
Reyman, Jessica 2005, BMG Music v. Gonzalez: Fair Use Tested in a Federal Court. Web.
US Code 2012, Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works.