Motion to Dismiss — Heilman v. A & M Records, Inc.

Supreme Court brief1978

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

MAY 23 1978

Supreme Court of the United Sf

AEL RODAK, JR., CLERK

October Term, 1977

No. 77-1535

Davip L. HEILMAN,

Appellant,

VS.

A & M Recorps, INc., a California Corporation,

Appellee.

On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the State of California.

Motion to Dismiss Appeal or, in the Alternative,

to Affirm.

HOWARD S. SMITH,

1800 Century Park East,

Los Angeles, Calif. 90067,

(213) 553-5000,

Attorney for Appellee

A & M Records, Inc.

Of Counsel:

MITCHELL, SILBERBERG & KNUPP,

RUSSELL J. FRACKMAN,

Davip S. GUBMAN.

1800 Century Park East,

Los Angeles, Calif. 90067,

(213) 553-5000.

Parker & Son, Inc., Law Printers, Los Angeles. Phone 724-6622 (

—a-

—

SUBJECT INDEX

Statement of the Case and Proceedings Below ..........

Questions Presented by Appeal ...............------.------++-+

This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction of This

Appellant Did Not Raise, and the Cali-

fornia Courts Did Not Decide, the Valid-

ity of Any California Statute ....................

The Cases Cited in the Jurisdictional

Statement Do Not Support Appellant’s

Argument That This Court Has Juris-

diction of Titis Appeal ....................-2-2+--.-

Even if This Court Has Jurisdiction the Judg-

ment Below Should Be Affirmed Because the

Appeal Does Not Present a Substantial Federal

Question and Because the Questions Presented

Are so Unsubstantial as Not to Need Further

BE hecisbns ieccktiblipsnigtintonterinteiinapipienccenene

A. The California Court of Appeal’s Con-

©.

struction of California Common Law and

the Scope of the California Injunction Do

Not Present Any Substantial Federal

BT TT A aS a ean

The Decision of the California Court of

Appeal Is in Accord With Decisions of

aa cin ecetendeicsise

Appellant’s Argument That the Commerce

Clause Precludes California From Enjoin-

ii,

Page

ing Appellant's Conduct in or Aimed at

California Raises No Substantial Federal

GE ennsinnennenmenionn 17

D, Appellant's Claim That His Record and

Tape Piracy Is Protected by the Compul-

sory License Provisions of the se

RGR GS FEGRED wvenenwvensics 19

E. Appellant's First Amendment Claim Is

F, Appellant's Other Claims Raise No Sub-

stantial Federal Question .. —

Appellant Has Failed to Comply With the Rules

of This Court, in That He Has Not Shown

the Manner in Which He Raised in the Cali-

fornia Courts the Questions Presented by This

Appeal. Moreover, Appellant Never Raised in

the California Courts Most of the Questions

He Asks This Court to Consider ................... 24

There Are No Grounds for Treating the Jurisdic-

tional Statement as a Petition for Writ of

0 ee —— 25

CORRRTIIUD pevnnensuiantttinnnterenn, 25

Exhibit 1. Statutes Proseribing Record and Tape

Piracy.

Exhibit 2. Court Decisions Proscribing Record

and Tape Piracy.

iii,

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases Page

A & M Records, Inc, v, Heilman, 75 Cal, App. 3d

554, 142 Cal, Rptr, 390 (1977) ccccccccceeencnnn

eeuiemnataneteansipentegeenmonnvanemenaen 2, 7, 16, 21, 22, 23

A & M Records, Inc, v, M.V.C, Distributing Corp.,

No, 76-1843-44 (6th Cir, April 7, 1978)... 6

Aeolian Co, v, Royal Music Roll Co,, 196 F, 926

ag” linia a SA 2

American Philatelic Society v, Clairbourne, 3 Cal.

2d 689, 46 P.2d 135 (1938) ...cccccccccersecreesseeeneees 14

Athens Lodge No, 70 v, Wilson, 117 Cal, App. 2d

322, 255 P.2d 482 (1953) cocccccccscevveeveeveeeen x

Bigelow v, Virginia, 421 U.S, 809 (1975) ............ 21

Brown v. Republic Productions, Inc., 26 Cal, 2d

Ae BS 8 Re ) 14

California Prune & Apricot Association v. H.R,

Nicholson Co,, 69 Cal, APP. 2d 207, 158 P.2d

| ET SNE 13

California v, Zook, 336 U.S, 725 (1949) ..060. 17

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Erickson, 2 Cal, App. 3d

526, 82 Cal, Rptr. 798 (1969), cert, denied, 398

en 6, 7

Capitol Records, Inc, v, Spies, 130 Ill, App. 2d 429,

BO Te GIS CUGTO) cvrevevevvvevereecececevsevcnsneevese 14

Carey v, Population Services International, 431 U.S,

Ee 21

Church v, Bailey, 90 Cal, App, 2d 501, 203 P.2d

OO en 15, 16

iv,

Page

Dahnke-Walker Milling Co, v. Bondurant, 257 U.S,

a 8,

Duchess Music Corp, v, Stern, 458 F.2d 1305 (9th

Cir), cert, denied, 409 U.S, 847 (1972) ..........

E-C Tape Service, Inc, v, Barron, 71 F.R.D, 585

ee ee

E-C Tapes, Inc, v, Kelly, 412 F, pany 245 (N.D.

RR ) ee 3,

Economic Consultants, Inc, v, Mercury Record

Productions, Inc,, 420 U.S, 914 (1975) ........ 9,

Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v, Colorado Mag-

netics, Inc,, 497 F.2d 285 (10th Cir, 1974), cert,

denied, 419 U.S. 1120 (1975) oo... AEB

Fame Publishing Co, v, Alabama Custom Tape,

Inc., 507 F.2d 667 (Sth Cir.), cert, denied, 423

UB, O40 CEGTS) recercecererecreees ee ee ee

Fashion Orginators’ Guild vy. Federal Trade Com-

mission, 312 U.S. 457 (1941) ...cccccccccccecsseceeverees

Fonotipia, Ltd, v, Bradley, 171 F, 951 (C.C,B.D,

oe |

Funk v, United States, 290 U.S, 371 (1934) ........

Gagnon Co, v. Nevada Desert Inn, Inc,, 45 Cal, 2d

QED, BED PAE GEG CAGES) cceceveevevecnseeesessceeseevses:

Gai Audio v, Columbia Broadcasting Systems, Inc.,

27 Md. App. 172, 340 A.2d 736 (Ct. — App.

ae sabia vinaindipiainmmnaniiahimamanamen

Goldstein v, California, 412 U.S, 546 (1973) ee

SPUN ES * a | | > * F Fy

Hall v, Wright, 125 F.Supp, 269 (S.D, Cal, 1954)

—— — a

Vv.

Page

Head v, New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optom-

CELY, 374 U.S, 424 (1963) ..ccccccccecccecccseceeeeeneennes 18

Heilman v, Bell, 434 F, Supp, 564 (B.D.

Wis, 1977), appeal docketed, No, 77-1968 (7th

Cir, Sept, 26, 1977) ...ccvssecsssssesersnersennneessssneenn 3, 20

Heilman v, Levi, 391 F, Supp, 1106 (B.D, Wis,

1975), appeal docketed, No, 77-1968 (7th Cir,

eg AR, 3, 20

Heilman v. Wolke, 427 F, Sup. 730 (B.D, Wis.

a 3

Henry v, Mississippi, 379 U.S, 443 (1965) aor 12

Huron Portland Cement Co, v, Detroit, 362 U.S.

a enabliblibenbe 18

International News Service v. Associated Press, 248

EE a a 6

International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v,

United Telephone Company of Florida, 60

F.R.D, 177 (M.D, Fla, 1973) cccccccccccccceeecnensenes 22

Jondora Music Publishing Co. v, Melody Record-

ings, Inc,, 506 F.2d 392 (3d Cir.), cert. denied,

ES Ee ) en 19

Kewanee Oil Co. v, Bicron Corp., 416 U.S, 470

CED :dintcrencietibutiinernn eguaienine 10, 16

Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S, 820 (1961) .......... 8, 9

Lavine v. Milne, 424 U.S. 577 (1976) oon 15

Lessee of Levy v. M'Cartee, 31 U.S, (6 Pet.) 102

(1832) ..... siehanteansinsieinasean dcingueneenmeeaemeNaEEEANIeR 9

Lutwak v, United States, 344 U.S, 604 ( 1953) poueee 9

Market St. R.R. Co. v, Railroad Commission, 324

RR Sn 9

vi,

Page

Mercury Record Productions, Inc, v. Economic Con-

sultants, Inc., 64 Wis, 2d 163, 218 N.W.2d 705

(1974), appeal dismissed and cert, denied, 420

“TY | onineednenenceneianetet cody 10, 14

New York v, O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959) cocccccccccsoon 13

Ojala v. Bohlin, 178 Cal, App. 2d 292, 2 Cal. Rptr,

OO GOI: ii cis sncstsisinnsthiapilctiesiiaiiaaiaal 8, 9

Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc,, 397 U.S, 137 (1970) .. 19

Pittsburgh Press Co, v, Pittsburgh Commission on

Human Relations, 413 U.S, 376 (1973) ........ 20, 21

Securities & Exchange Commission v. American

Beryllium & Oil Corp., 303 F. Supp, 912 (S.D.

8 a eee 22

Shapiro, Bernstein & Co, v. Remington Records,

Inc., 265 F.2d 263 (2d Cir, 1959) o.com 2

Sligh v, Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52 (1915) 4.40 19

Tape Industries Association of America v. Younger,

316 F, Supp. 340 (C.D, Cal, 1970), appeal dis-

missed, 401 U.S, 902 (1971), aff'd per curiam,

No, 26,628 (9th Cir, Oct. 1, 1973) cocccccccce 2

Topanga Corp, v. Gentile, | Cal, App. 3d 572, 81

Cab, Sate, SED CREP) cnsentternenessetentices 23

United States v. Taxe, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir,

1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S, 1040 (1977) ........ 3

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citi-

zens Consumer Council, Inc,, 425 U.S, 748

0) Te 21

(1959) socvecsoencvenescesesecnvenesesecserescsecees seoseeuvoceoseeneene 15

vii.

Rules Page

Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

SURED, REED BSCE) CE). cccevceccecessccvsesveevvevrnestetebabes 24

Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

GRRE, CRIED 86 ccnmenennneenenentes 1

Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

DUNNED, FREED BG(R) cccecrshrserevcvedeczccececesevtbabteieseedes 24

Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

ee 25

Statutes

California Civil Code, S60, 2224 .......ccccccccccceeceereeees 15

California Civil Code, S06, 3369 ooo..occcccceceeeeen 8

California Penal Code, See, 6538 ......cccccceee 7

Public Law 92-140 (85 Stat, 391 (1971)) .......... 11

United States Code, Title 17, See, 1(€) o.ccccccccee 19

United States Code, Title 17, Sec, 102(a)(7) ........ 7

United States Code, Title 17, See, 106 ..0....cce 7

United States Code, Title 17, See, 114 oon 7

United States Code, Title 17, Sec, 301(¢) .......... 7

United States Code, Title 28, See, 1257(2) 0.0...

sbeninelitninenrendiaiienrenimmmnenenened 4, 5, 6, 9, 10

United States Code, Title 28, See, 2103.0... 25

United States Constitution, First Amendment ....20, 21

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment

viii,

Textbooks Page

Note, Piracy on Records, 5 Stan, L. Rev, 433

(1953) , 2

Restatement (Second) of Conflict of einie Sec. 33

(1971) .. a we bo

Restatement ‘(Second) of Torts, qperne- Note

to Chapter 35 (Tent, Draft No, 8, 1963) ......... 7

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1977

No. 77-1535

Davip L. HEILMAN,

Appellant,

vs.

A & M Recorps, INCc., a California Corporation,

Appellee.

On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the State of California.

Motion to Dismiss Appeal or, in the Alternative,

to Affirm.

Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of the

Supreme Court of the United States, appellee A & M

Records, Inc. (plaintiff below) moves that this ap-

peal be dismissed on the ground that this Court

does not have jurisdiction thereof, appellant not having

challenged the validity of any state statute on the

grounds of its repugnancy to the Constitution, treaties

or laws of the United States. Appellee alternatively

moves that the judgment below be affirmed because

the questions raised turn upon state law and, in any

event, are so unsubstantial as not to need further

argument.

Statement of the Case and Proceedings Below.

Appellant has mischaracterized both the facts and

the proceedings below. The findings of fact and con-

clusions of law of the trial court are annexed at pages

28-42 of the Appendix to the Jurisdictional Statement

(“Juris. Stmt. Appen.”). The decision of the California

Court of Appeal’ accurately summarizes the facts as

found by the trial court.” The pertinent facts respecting

appellant’s conduct are also stated in six prior reported

decisions involving appellant.*

The following facts are particularly pertinent to this

appeal.

Appellee is a Los Angeles based record company

which owns, manufactures and sells recorded musical

performances by popular artists in the form of disc

phonograph records and pre-recorded magnetic tapes.

Appellant is an admitted record and tape pirate,‘ who

conducted his record and tape piracy through his co-

defendant, Economic Consultants, Inc., now known

as E-C Tape, Inc. and doing business as E-C Tape

Service (hereinafter referred to as “E-C”). Appellant

14 & M Records, Inc. v. Heilman, 75 Cal. App. 3d

554, 142 Cal. Rptr. 390 (1977); the decision also appears

in Juris. Stmt. Appen. at 4-22.

2Id., 75 Cal. App. 3d at 560-61, 142 Cal. Rptr. at 394-

95, Juris. Stmt. Appen. at 5-8.

®See cases cited note 5 infra.

*“Record piracy” and “tape piracy” are the terms commonly

employed to describe the theft of recorded performances by

the manufacture and sale of unauthorized duplicates of records

and tapes. See Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 549

(1973); Aeolian Co. v. Royal Music Roll Co., 196 F. 926

(W.D.N.Y. 1912); Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Remington

Records, Inc., 265 F.2d 263, 269, 273 (2d Cir. 1959); Tape

Indus. Ass’n of America v. Younger, 316 F. Supp. 340, 351

(C.D. Cal. 1970), appeal dismissed, 401 U.S. 902 (1971),

affd per curiam, No. 26,628 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 1973); Note,

Piracy on Records, 5 Stan. L. Rev. 433 (1953).

and E-C have been enjoined by the Circuit Court

of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin from engaging in

recor’ and tape piracy in any place (as distinguished

from the injunction issued by the Superior Court of

Los Angeles County in this case, which enjoined them

only from engaging in record and tape piracy in Cali-

fornia). Appellant has been jailed for contempt of

that Wisconsin injunction (in addition to having been

found in contempt of the Superior Court injunction

in this case). The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has

characterized appellant’s record and tape piracy as “lar-

ceny”, and appellant’s admitted record and tape piracy

has repeatedly been adjudged to be both civil and

criminal violations of the federal Copyright Act.°

Commencing in the latter part of 1971, appellant

and E-C, without consent or authorization, duplicated

recorded performances owned by appellee and other

record companies and advertised and sold pirated rec-

ords and tapes in California and elsewhere.* There

is no dispute that appellant and E-C carried on substan-

tial unlawful duplication activities in California and

appointed a Los Angeles manufacturer their agent for

the manufacture of pirated records embodying recorded

performances owned by appellee and others.’

5Mercury Record Prods., Inc. v. Economic Consultants, Inc.,

64 Wis. 2d 163, 218 N.W.2d 705, 714 (1974), appeal dismissed

and cert. denied. 420 U.S. 914 (1975); see also Heilman

v. Bell, 434 F. Supp. 564, 566-67 (E.D. Wis. 1977), motion

for TRO and prelim. inj. denied sub nom. in Heilman v. Levi,

391 F. Supp. 1106, 1111-13 (E.D. Wis. 1975), appeal docketed,

No. 77-1 (7th Cir. Sept. 26, 1977); Heilman v. Wolke, 427

F. Supp. 730 (E.D. Wis. 1977); E-C Tape Service, Inc. v.

Barron, 71 F.R.D. 585 (E.D. Wis. 1976); E-C Tapes, Inc.

v. Kelly, 412 F. Supp. 245, 248 (N.D. Ill. 1975). Record and

tape piracy also violates several other federal criminal statutes.

See United States v. Taxe, 540 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976),

cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 (1977).

*Finding No. 2, Juris. Stmt. Appen. at 30.

"Finding No. 26, Juris. Stmt. Appen. at 37.

ctnclbiits

Appellee brought this action against appellant and

E-C in Los Angeles County Superior Court for unfair

competition and unjust enrichment, seeking monetary

damages for the misappropriation of appellee’s product.

Appellee also sought, and the trial court granted, a

temporary restraining order and later a preliminary

injunction enjoining appellant and E-C from, without

appellee’s consent, duplicating in California recorded

performances owned by appellee, and from advertising,

offering for sale or selling in California pirated records

and tapes embodying recorded performances owned

by appellee.

The Superior Court granted summary judgment in

favor of appellee on the issue of liability and ordered

that the preliminary injunction be made permanent. At

the conclusion of a trial to the court on the issue of

damages, appellee was awarded compensatory damages

of $80,000.00, punitive damages of $50,000.00 and

costs against appellant and E-C, jointly and severally.

E-C did not appeal, and the judgment is now final as

to it.

Questions Presented by Appeal.

Appellant does not accurately state the issues before

this Court. The questions presented by this appeal

are:

1. Does the Supreme Court of the United States

have jurisdiction of an appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1257(2), where the decision of the highest court

of the state (by declining to review an intermediate

appellate court decision) is based on that court’s con-

struction of the common law of that state, and where

appellant did not at any time, in either the trial court

vialliian

or the state’s appellate courts, question the validity

of any state statute on the grounds of its being repug-

nant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United

States, and where the state courts did not at any

time determine the validity of any state statute?

2. Do the California courts have the power to

hold that record and tape piracy, carried on in Cali-

fornia by a defendant over whom California has per-

sonal jurisdiction, is unfair competition under the com-

mon law of California and to enjoin such record and

tape piracy in or aimed at California, even though

that defendant engages in record and tape piracy in

other states as well?

3. Do the California courts have the power to

hold that record and tape piracy, by a defendant over

whom California has personal jurisdiction, and who

manufactured pirated phonograph records in California,

is unfair competition entitling the plaintiff to recover

damages resulting from all that defendant’s activities

and sales, where the defendant has not shown that

his operations were legal in any state, and where he

has made it impossible to isolate that portion of his

activities occurring solely in California?

4. Has appellant properly raised any substantial

federal question?

This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction of This Appeal.

Appeilant invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. §1257(2) which provides in part:

“Final judgments or decrees rendered by the high-

est court of a State in which a decision could

be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court

as follows:

—b—

“(2) By appeal, where is drawn in question the

validity of a statute of any state on the ground

of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties

or laws of the United States, and the decision

is in favor of its validity.”

This Court lacks appellate jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. §1257(2) because an essential prerequisite to

such jurisdiction is lacking here: this case does not

in any way involve the validity of a state statute.

A. Appellant Did Not Raise, and the California Courts Did

Not Decide, the Validity of Any California Statute.

The decision of the California Court of Appeal is

based on that court’s interpretation of the common

law of California. The California Court of Appeal

did no more than rule that appellant committed the

common-law tort of unfair competition by misappro-

priating the intangible property of appellee, thereby

entitling appellee to damages and an injunction. The

California Court of Appeal simply applied a common-

law doctrine enunciated by this Court in /nternational

News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918),

held to be applicable to record and tape piracy in

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Erickson, 2 Cal. App. 3d 526,

82 Cal. Rptr. 798 (1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 960

(1970), and applied to record piracy as recently as

last month by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit. See A & M Records, Inc. v. M.V.C. Distribut-

ing Corp., No. 76-1843-44, slip op. at 3 (6th Cir.

April 7, 1978).°

*The “misappropriation” doctrine was first applied to record

piracy by a federal court the same year that Conquest enacted

the yright Act of 1909. Fonotipia, Ltd. v. Bradley, 171 F.

951 (C.C.E.D.N.Y. 1909).

Appellant pirated records which had been fixed prior

to February 15, 1972 and which are accordingly pro-

tected against piracy under state law. See Goldstein

v. California, supra. Recordings fixed subsequent to

February 15, 1972 are protected against piracy by

federal law. 17 U.S.C. §§102(a)(7), 106, 114. Piracy

of recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 is

a crime in forty-nine states, including California, and

the courts of every state which have decided the issue

have held that record and tape piracy is unfair com-

petition.”

Appellant’s contention that the validity of a state

statute is drawn into question wholly ignores the fact

that this liability is predicated on his commission of

the common-law torts of misappropriation and con-

version. The California Court of Appeal plainly based

its decision on the common law of the State of Cali-

fornia. In its opinion, the court stated that appellant's

conduct constituted unfair competition because it was

misappropriation.” See also Restatement (Second) of

Torts, Introductory Note to Chapter 35 (Tent. Draft

No. 8, 1963) (recognizing that the law of unfair com-

petition and unfair trade practices derives from the

common law).

*See Cal. Penal Code §653h; Capitol Records, Inc. v.

Erickson, 2 Cal. a @ 3d 526, 82 Cal. Rptr. 798 (1969),

cert. denied, 398 U.S. 960 (1970) and statutes and decisions

of other states collected in Exhibits 1 and 2 to this —_—.

In the new Copyright Act, Congress expressly recognized and

confirmed the right of the states to protect pre-1972 recordings

against piracy until 2047, exempting such from the

general rule of federal preemption contained in the new ho

right Act. 17 U.S.C. §301(c).

04 & M Records, Inc. v. Heilman, supra, 75 Cal. App. 3d

at 564, 142 Cal. Rptr. at 396, Juris. Stmt. Appen. at 11-12.

—

That California has codified a portion of the

common law does not draw any statute into question,

The legislature, in enacting Civil Code §3369, carefully

chose the phrase “shall mean and include” in defining

unfair competition, to indicate that the statutory defini-

tion was not intended to be restrictive or exclusive,

Athens Lodge No. 70 v, Wilson, 117 Cal. App, 2d

322, 325, 255 P.2d 482, 484 (1953). The legislature

has left it to the courts “to determine what conduct

will constitute unfair competition in a particular case,”

Hall v. Wright, 125 F. Supp. 269, 272 (S.D. Cal,

1954) (applying California law); Ojala v. Bohlin,

178 Cal. App. 2d 292, 301, 2 Cal. Rptr. 919, 924

(1960) (“The legal concept of unfair competition has

evolved as a broad and flexible doctrine with a capacity

for further growth to meet changing conditions, and

there is no complete list of the activities which constitute

unfair competition.”). Such case-by-case adjudication is

but the development of the common law; the validity of

& statute is not drawn in question thereby.

B. The Cases Cited in the Jurisdictional Statement Do Not

Support Appellant's Argument That This Court Has Juris-

diction of This Appeal.

Appeilant has cited two cases to support his claim

that the judgment of the California Supreme Court

is a “legislative act” and that he is accordingly appeal-

ing from a decision upholding the validity of a statute:

Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961); and

Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 US.

anffas

282 (1921), Appellant also relied on these cases in

presenting his prior appeal to this Court."

Lathrop held that an order of the Wisconsin Supreme

Court integrating the Wisconsin bar was to be consid-

ered a “statute” for the purpose of 28 U.S.C, §1257(2)

because it was legislative in nature, “bore no resem-

blance to adjudication . . . [and] disposed of no

litigation between parties.” 367 U.S, at 827, Dahnke-

Walker involved the validity of a Kentucky statute pre-

scribing conditions to doing business in the State.

The judgment appealed from here, on the. other

hand, has all the attributes of adjudication and repre-

sents the culmination of litigation between parties. The

principles, rationales and express holdings of Lathrop

and Dahnke-Walker therefore have no bearing here.

“The common law is constantly and generally used

in contradistinction to statute law.” Lessee of Levy

v, M'Cartee, 31 U.S, (6 Pet.) 102, 110 (1832), “It

has been said so often as to have become axiomatic

that the common law is not immutable but flexible,

and by its own principles adapts itself to varying con-

ditions.” Lutwak v, United States, 344 US. 604,

615 (1953), quoting from Funk v. United States,

290 U.S. 371, 383 (1934); ef. Ojala v. Bohlin, supra,

aaltiicns

ascribing the same attribute of flexibility to California's

definition of unfair competition. Acceptance of appel-

lant’s argument that the California Court of Appeal’s

construction of the California common law of unfair

competition is “legislation” and sufficient to invoke

this Court's appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C,

§1257(2), would render the references to state statutes

in §1257 meaningless.

;

Even if This Court Has

Should Be Affirmed Because the

Every colorable federal question raised by appellant

was answered by this Court in Goldstein v, California,

412 U.S. 546 (1973), and Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron

Corp., 416 U.S, 470 (1974), There is no reason for

reexamination of any of these issues.

This is not the first time appellant has asked this

Court to rule that federal law exempts his record and

tape piracy from the consequences of state law, In

Mercury Record Productions, Inc, v. Economic Con-

sultants, Inc,, 64 Wis, 2d 163, 218 N.W.2d 705 (1974),

appeal dismissed and cert, denied, 420 US. 914

(1975), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that

record and tape piracy was enjoinable unfair com-

petition. The defendants in that action, E-C and appel-

lant herein, appealed to this Court from the decision

of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. In his Jurisdictional

soe

Statement in that appeal, appellant raised substantially

the same questions presented here. He asserted that

the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision violated the

records which were fixed prior to February 15,

1972”;"" that the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme

Court violated the supremacy clause and was contrary

to this Court's decision in Goldstein v, California,

412 U.S. 546 (1973);" that the decision of the Wis-

consin Supreme Court violated the commerce clause

by prohibiting interstate and international commerce

in pirated records and tapes;"* that the decision of

the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the copyright

and supremacy clauses by prohibiting the sale of record-

ings which had been granted federal compilation copy-

rights;"" and that Congress had preempted the field

by its passage of the Sound Recording Act, Public

Law 92-140, 85 Stat. 391 (1971). This Court dis

missed appellant's prior appeal and denied certiorari,

Economic Consultants, Inc. v. Mercury Record Produc

tions, Inc,, 420 U.S, 914 (1975),

These same issues, raised by appellant in this appeal,

are just as unsubstantial now as they were in appellant's

prior appeal.

“Jurisdictional Statement at 5, Economic Consultants, Inc.

v. Mercury Record Prods., Inc., 420 U.S, 914 (1975),

"Id.

“Id, at 6,

"Id.

—_——=

A. The California Court of Appeal’s Construction of Call-

fornia Common Law and the Scope of the California In-

junction Do Not Present Any Substantial Federal Question.

Exposition of California's common law of unfair

competition and, in particular, whether the misappro-

priation doctrine is a part of that common law, and

whether record and tape piracy is tortious, are not

within this Court's jurisdiction, but are matters within

the exclusive province of the California courts,

“(Whether or not given conduct is tortious is a ques

tion of state law... .” Fashion Originators’ Guild vy.

Federal Trade Commission, 312 U.S, 457, 468 (1941),

“Under the view . . . of the statutes conferring appellate

jurisdiction on this Court, we have no power to revise

judgments on questions of state law.” Henry v, Missis-

sippi, 379 U.S, 443, 446-47 (1965),

Appellant stresses that he engaged in the piracy

of appellee's product, not only in California, but

throughout the nation. His central thesis is that the

scope of his activity insulates him from the application

of California law, Apart from the fact that this conten-

tion is wholly at odds with Goldstein v. California,

412 U.S, 546 (1973)," record and tape piracy is

illegal everywhere.” If it were true, as appellant

argues, that California cannot give relief because the

"See pp. 14, 19 infra.

' of recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972

—13—

scope of appellant's piracy was nationwide, the logical

consequence would be that no state could grant such

relief, even though appellant's conduct is illegal in

every state, The absurdity of such a result is apparent,

The federal structure was never intended to be a shield

for illegal activity.

Moreover, appellant consented to the jurisdiction

of the California courts by making a general appear-

ance.” Even in the absence of appellant's consent,

the California courts had jurisdiction because appellant

conducted a substantial portion of his manufacturing

and labeling operations in California, and offered for

sale and sold his pirated records and tapes in California.

Having acquired personal jurisdiction over appellant,

the California courts were empowered to grant appellee

the relief which it sought. The trial court issued an

injunction narrowly circumscribed to appellant's activi-

ties in, or aimed at, California, The power of a court

having personal jurisdiction over a defendant to grant

compensatory relief for all damages caused by the

conduct of that defendant, not merely those occurring

within its own border, is clear and unquestioned, Re-

statement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §53 (1971),

and has been recognized by this Court. New York vy.

O'Neill, 359 U.S, 1, 8-9 (1959); see also California

Prune & Apricot Association v, H.R, Nicholson Co., 69

Cal, App. 2d 207, 224-25, 158 P.2d 764, 773 (1945),

“See, ¢.g., Clerk's Transcript at 115 (minute order showing

Te lee Sh te ee,

—=

The courts have consistently awarded plaintiffs all

damages resulting from defendants’ unfair competition

based on all sales and have not limited damages to

a specific state or geographic area.” Any other rule

would require that a person wronged by unfair competi-

tion must institute multiple actions in every jurisdiction

and prove sales which took place solely within each

particular state,

Nothing in Goldstein v, California, 412 US, 546

(1973), precludes affording complete relief in one ac-

tion. Goldstein holds that each state may, without

violating the Constitution, outlaw record and tape pi

racy. In the absence of proof to the contrary, California

presumes foreign law to be the same as its own, Gagnon

Co. v. Nevada Desert Inn, Inc,, 45 Cal. 2d 448,

454, 289 P.2d 466, 471 (1955). Defendants did not-—

and cannot—identify any state in which record and

tape piracy is legal. In fact, appellant's record and

tape piracy was illegal in California, the forum state,

in Wisconsin, appellant's domicile, and in Illinois, where

appellant relocated his piracy operation in defiance

of existing Illinois law.”

Appellant asserts that the trial court should have

sauned the burden of proving E-C’s California sales

‘ Gai Audio v. Columbia

ine. t) 3a. Ae 7a" 340 A676, 732 (Ci

. Brown v, a Ase Inc., 26 Cal.

24 867, "pad 7196, 7971945) agg» Bo

~ for. use musical composition merican

$y -*. 689, 692, 46 P.2d 135,

137 (1935) (national A dwg perforated stamps).

™M Record Prods. v. Economic fog

Inc., 64 Wis. 24 163, 218 N.wedd 705, 712 (1974), appeal

dismissed and cert. denied, 420 US. 914 shi os

8 1970). Fo Se ico lave Uets chums OC tee

. Port

apg ist 1 and 2, annexed hereto.

—_— =

on appellee.” Rules allocating the burden of proof

in civil cases are matters of local law, not federal

questions cognizable before this Court. Lavine v. Milne,

424 U.S. 577, 585 (1976). The decision of the Califor-

nia Court of Appeal, affirming the allocation of the

burden of proof by the trial court, is conclusive.

No federal question is raised by appellant’s challenge

to the calculation of damages.” In substance, appellant

contends that were this a federal copyright infringement

case, he would have been entitled to deduct his costs

incurred in connection with his piracy operations. The

obvious and simple answer is that this was not a

federal copyright infringement case. Rather, liability

was imposed because appellant engaged in common-

law unfair competition.

Appellant was not permitted to deduct his costs

for two reasons, both founded solely in state law,

and neither of which raises any federal question. First,

the basis of his liability was that he misappropriated

and sold appellee’s property. Under California law,

one who misappropriates the property of another is

not entitled to deduct any of the costs of the transaction

by which he accomplishes his wrongful conduct. Ward

v. Taggart, 51 Cal. 2d 736, 744, 336 P.2d 534,

539 (1959); see also Cal. Civ. Code §2224; Church

v. Bailey, 90 Cal. App. 2d 501, 504, 203 P.2d 547,

*2Juris. Stmt. at 10-11. Appellant asserts that the trial court

“suddenly” foisted this burden upon him during final argument.

Id. However, prior to the conclusion of case in

chief, the trial court adverted to this problem. s

script at 494-95. Having been thus forewarned, appellant

the sole blame for his failure to develop this alleged defense.

**Juris. Stmt. at 18. Appellant’s contention that federal copy-

right law governs the calculation of damages in a state common-

law unfair competition case was not raised below.

—_—s

549 (1949) (imposing constructive trust on proceeds

of sale of another’s property). Second, the trial court

found that due to appellant’s inaccurate and incomplete

books it was impossible to verify those alleged ex-

penses.”*

B. The Decision of the California Court of Appeal Is in Ac-

cord With Decisions of This Court.

The decision of the California Court of Appeal,

enjoining appellant’s record and tape piracy in or aimed

at California as unlawful, unfair competition and award-

ing damages for such conduct, is squarely sanctioned

by Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973) and

Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470

(1974). In Kewanee, this Court expressly recognized

that commercial theft threatens “the basic decency of

society” and that “the state interest in denying profit

to such’ illegal ventures is unchallengeable.” 416 U.S.

at 487.

Appellant’s contention, that the state court has cre-

ated a “national copyright”, is flatly contradicted by

the language of the permanent injunction. That injunc-

tion is carefully circumscribed to activities in, or aimed

at, California.”

Appellant’s claim that he has copyrighted his pirated

compilations” attempts to raise a spurious issue. The

issue here is the right of appellant to make his com-

pilations by pirating other recordings. The issue is

not whether appellant’s pirated compilations are sub-

*%4 & M Records, Inc. v. Heilman, supra, 75 Cal. App.

3d at 570, n.11, 142 Cal. Rptr. at 400, Juris. Stmt. Appen.

at 20.

25See Judgment, Juris. Stmt. Appen. at 25-26.

*¢Juris. Stmt. at 21.

ee. ee ee ~

auton

ject to copyright or have been or can be copied by

others.

C. Appeliant’s Argument That the Commerce Clause Precludes

California From Enjoining Appellant’s Conduct in or

Aimed at California Raises No Substantial Federal Question.

Appellant asserts that the injunction violates the

commerce clause by allegedly interfering with the na-

tional advertising of defendants.*‘ However, all injunc-

tive relief is limited to California. In any event, there

is no lawful commerce, interstate or intrastate, in pirated

records and tapes. The simple fact is that an injunction

against the advertisement or sale of such contraband

in no way contravenes the Commerce Clause or Copy-

right Clause any more than would an injunction against

the advertising and sale of heroin.

Other decisions of this Court interpreting the Com-

merce Clause strongly support the right of California

to outlaw deleterious business practices such as record

and tape piracy.

In California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (1949), this

Court upheld a California statute which prohibited

the arrangement of transportation over the public high-

ways of California if the transporting carrier had no

permit from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The

Federal Motor Carrier Act has substantially the same

provision. 336 U.S. at 726-27. This Court rejected

arguments that the California statute was invalid under

the Commerce Clause and held that the fact that

a state law may be identical to a federal statute does

not “automatically” render the state law invalid. 336

US. at 732.

*"Juris. Stmt. at 19.

— =

In Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U.S.

440 (1960), this Court upheld against an attack based

on the Commerce Clause certain smoke abatement

ordinances of the city of Detroit which had been applied

to ships traveling in interstate commerce, stating that

the “teaching of this Court’s decisions . . . enjoin

seeking out conflicts between state and federal regula-

tion where none clearly exists.” 362 U.S. at 446.

In Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in

Optometry, 374 U.S. 424 (1963), this Court upheld

a New Mexico law which had been applied to prohibit

advertising which Texas optometrists had placed in

a newspaper and radio station located in New Mexico,

but most of whose readers and listeners were located

in Texas. This Court held that “a state law may

not be struck down on the mere showing that its

administration affects interstate commerce in some way”

and that the New Mexico legislation in question did

not impinge “upon an area of interstate commerce

which by its nature requires uniformity of regulation.”

374 U.S. at 429. In Goldstein, this Court squarely

held that the prohibition of the piracy of pre-1972

recordings does not require “uniformity of regulation”.

Since the result in Head was to permit New Mezico

to prevent Texas residents from hearing advertisemen‘s

about a Texas business, which advertisements were

lawful in Texas, a fortiori California can enjoin appel-

lant’s advertisements for his record and tape piracy—

which are unlawful everywhere—insofar as those ad-

vertisements are aimed at the State of California. More-

over, this case involves stolen property—pirated sound

recordings—which, like contaminated or unfit produce,

is “not the legitimate subject of trade or commerce,

nor within the protection of the commerce clause of

=_—

the Constitution”. Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52,

60 (1915), quoted and cited with approval in Pike

v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 143-44 (1970).

D. Appellant's Claim That His Record and Tape Piracy Is

Protected by the Compulsory License Provisions of the

Appellant contends that the “compulsory license pro-

visions” of former 17 U.S.C. §1(e) protect his record

and tape piracy.” The argument is without merit.

In Goldstein v. California, supra, this Court rejected

this argument, 412 U.S. at 566 & n.23. Four Courts

of Appeals have held that record and tape pirates

do not have the right to invoke the compulsory license

provisions of the Copyright Act, and in each case,

this Court declined to review the decision. Duchess

Music Corp. v. Stern, 458 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 409 U.S. 847 (1972); Jondora Music

Publishing Co. v. Melody Recordings, Inc., 506 F.2d

392 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1012 (1975);

Fame Publishing Co. v. Alabama Custom Tape, Inc.,

507 F.2d 667 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 841

(1975); Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Colovado

Magnetics, Inc., 497 F.2d 285 (10th Cir. 1974), cert.

denied, 419 U.S. 1120 (1975). In Colorado Magnetics,

supra, this Court invited the United States to submit

a brief amicus curiae addressing the contention that

the compulsory license laws were available to record

and tape pirates. The Soficitor General’s brief, filed

in December, 1974, cogently analyzed the reasons why

it was contrary to law and policy to permit such

pirates to rely on former §1(e). Thereafter, this Court

denied certiorari.

**Juris. Stmt. at 20-21.

~~ =

Moreover, appellant has himself previously litigated

this issue. There have been three determinations hold-

ing that appellant’s record and tape piracy is in vio-

lation of federal law and that appellant has no

rights under the compulsory license provisions of the

566-67 (E.D. Wis. 1977); E-C Tapes, Inc. v. Kelly,

412 F. Supp. 245, 248 (N.D. Ill. 1975); Heilman v.

Levi, 391 F. Supp. 1106, 1111 (E.D. Wis. 1975).”

E. Appeliant’s First Amendment Claim Is Frivolous.

The First Amendment does not curtail the states’

power to prevent the solicitation of unlawful transac-

tions, such as sales of pirated records and tapes. In

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Hu-

man Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973), a newspaper

asserted a First Amendment right to print job advertise-

ments in sex-designated column headings in violation

of a local ordinance. This Court had little difficulty

in rejecting that proposition:

“Discrimination in employment is not only com-

mercial activity, it is illegal commercial activity

under the Ordinance. We have no doubt that

a newspaper constitutionally could be forbidden to

publish a want ad proposing a sale of narcotics

or soliciting prostitutes.” /d. at 388 (footnotes

omitted ).

2° 4ppeal docketed, No. 77-1968 (7th Cir. Sept. 26, 1977). -

%4ppeal docketed, No. 77-1968 (7th Cir. Sept. 26, 1977).

onion

This Court’s subsequent recognition of First Amend-

ment rights in commercial speech” in no way impairs

the vitality of Pittsburgh Press. In Virginia State Board

of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council,

Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 771-72 (1976), and again in

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 US.

678, 700-02 (1977), this Court explicitly reaffirmed

the power of the states to regulate commercial speech

and in particular advertisements which propose illegal

transactions.*

F. Appellant's Other Claims Raise No Substantial Federal

Question.

None of the remaining arguments set forth in the

Jurisdictional Statement present federal questions prop-

erly raised in the proceedings below. In the California

Court of Appeal, appellant asserted that the trial court

committed an abuse of discretion by precluding appel-

lant from testifying at trial.“* Now, for the first time,

he makes the different claim that the order precluding

him from testifying violated his Fourteenth Amendment

rights. Since the claim was not raised below, appellant

cannot make the claim here.” In any event, appeliant’s

*1See, e.g., Virginia St. Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens

Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bigelow v.

Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975).

*The cases relied upon by appellant are inapposite since

neither involved the solicitation illegal transactions.

88 t’s Opening Brief at 27, A & M Records, Inc.

v. ate

Juris. Stmt. at 22-23.

85As the California Court of Appeal noted in its decision,

“[A]ppellant does not claim that the trial court’s order was

(This footnote is continued on next page)

= =

claim is contrary to federal law. See /nternational

Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. United Telephone

Company of Florida, 60 F.R.D. 177, 186 (M.D.

Fla. 1973); Securities & Exchange Commission v.

American Beryllium & Oil Corp., 303 F. Supp. 912,

921 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).

No federal question is raised with respect to the

denial of Thomas Kells’ application to be admitted

as counsel pro hac vice for the corporate defendaut,

E-C, which never appealed. The constitutional claim

is being presented for the first time in this Court,

since appellant previously argued only that the ruling

was an abuse of discretion.” Moreover, the only refer-

ence in the record to that motion is the trial court's

statement that it was denied. It is appellant's duty

to show that there is error and that he raised the

error at all levels. He has failed to make such a

showing. In any event, appellant lacks standing to

assert the rights of E-C, which is not a party to

this appeal. He is not asserting his own rights, because

his liability was not predicated on an alter ego theory,

but rather because of his personal participation in

E-C’s operations.”

a, yt fe * ap ben hy

ing Basie 25 U8°308, 318 (1973) UNE Y

Na a

~y oy supra, 75 Cal. App.

rtd at 398, Juris. Sumt. Appen. at 15,

2 ‘s Opening Brief at 28, A & M Records, Inc.

v. , supra.

e-- OB, & --— 4, Af, A

Issues Without the Com-

14, 1G 10, hurke. Smt. Apps. ct 26-46.

=™

Appellant asserts, also for the first time, that the

admission into evidence of facts regarding other actions

pending against him denied him due process.” In

the California Court of Appeal, he asserted only that

such evidence had no relevance to this case.” His

failure to raise this “issue” below precludes asserting

it here. In any event, his claim is specious. Evidence

of appellant's conduct in other states and of other

cases pending against him relating to his record and

tape piracy was clearly relevant to the issue of punitive

damages. Such evidence demonstrated the need for

an effective deterrent and also suggested an ability

to pay a sizeable damage award.

Moreover, this Court cannot consider the claim that

punitive damages are excessive because appellant failed

properly to press that claim in the California courts

by failing to raise the issue by a motion for a new

trial. A & M Records, Inc. v. Heilman, supra, 75

Cal. App. 3d at 569, n.10, 142 Cal. Rptr. at 400,

Juris. Stmt. Appen. at 19; see also Topanga Corp.

v. Gentile, 1 Cal. App. 3d 572, 577, 81 Cal. Roptr.

863, 865-66 (1969).

“Juris. Stmt. at 23.

ed ‘s Opening Brief at 34, A & M Records, Inc.

v. A supra.

Rule 15(1)(d) of the Revised Rules of the Supreme

Court of the United States provides in part:

“. . . If the appeal is from a state court, the

statement of the case shall also specify the stage

in the proceedings in the court of the first instance,

and in the appellate court, at which, and the

manner in which, the federal questions sought to be

reviewed were raised; the method of raising them

..» 5 and the way in which they were passed

upon by the court; with such pertinent quota-

tions of specific portions of the record, or summary

thereof, with a specific reference to the places in

the record where the matter appears .. . as will

support the assertion that the rulings of the court

were of a nature to bring the case within the statu-

tory provision believed to confer jurisdiction on this

court.”

Appellant has not complied with any of the foregoing

requirements. He has not specified when and in what

manner he raised the alleged “federal questions”; nor

has he described the manner in which those issues

were passed upon. Non-compl «ce with the require-

ments of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

States is, by itself, a basis for dismissing the appeal.

See Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

States, Rule 16(a).

= =

The reason for appellant's failure to comply with

this Court's rules is simple: he failed properly to raise

in the California courts almost all of the supposed

questions he seeks to raise in this Court.

There Are No Grounds for Treating the Jurisdictional

Statement as a Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

28 U.S.C. §2103 (1970) requires this Court to

treat the Jurisdictional Statement as a petition for writ

of certiorari if it appears that appellant has “improvi-

dently” invoked this Court's appellate jurisdiction.

But there are no “special and important reasons” for

this Court to hear this case. Rule 19, Revised Rules

of the Supreme Court of the United States. According-

ly, there is no reason for this Court to grant certiorari.

Conclusion,

This appeal raises only settled questions of law and

factual conflicts which were resolved by the California

courts and is frivolous.

For all of the reasons stated in this motion, appellee

respectfully urges that this Court dismiss this appeal,

or in the alternative, that it affirm the decision of

the California Court of Appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

Howarp §. SMITH,

Attorney for Appellee

A&M Records, Inc.

Of Counsel:

MITCHELL, SILBERBERG & KNuppP,

Russevt J, FRACKMAN,

Davip S. GUBMAN.

EXHIBIT 1.

Statutes Proscribing Record and Tape Piracy.*

Pine of aot leas than $50 Same as De owe

nor more than $250.

ig]

silts 15 f

Pebdruary 12, 1971 Mt terme ane

20 aynquysip ‘aanjoejnuew | 07 dn—ssuajjo yuanbesqns : €ZZ: 1 SUT

{iourmouy 07 jnjmeyuy 000°1$ 07 dn—asuajjo 387 szouRawapsW EL6I ‘1 Asenuer VNVISINOI

“spunos “poe si)

JO 4019;8U81) 4} JO SS01P JO UOrBorA Ul paonpoud

-pe pus aureu ay) Sulseaq sBuypsodes ayeon1jU0D Aw

you sBurpiqoas aynqiysip | ao1od pue ‘Q00'1$ 07 dn jo

sngee APuncny a) ma our puw ‘shep 09 07 dn 105

“UN O8{8 ‘JUaSUQS S12UMO 7 wit 10 ‘1078013

ay) ynoYy AM peuajsues) ase S| 1aA@YdIYM ‘asUazjJO ay

Spunos asoym Burpsovas JO UOISSIWIWIOD 94} WO} ;

[!eqaa 20 ayniquysip ‘ainjqoejn | ules jo yUNOW ay) ajqnop P — _SbP-re? SU

-uvws AjBurmouy 03 [Ny mB[U/) 10 QOO'TS 07 dn jo eulg souveWepTIW, PLE 0% ounr AMONLNAIX

“dnosB 10 ystqyae enzo" ay} JO

aureu ay) pue sainjoejnuew

ay} JO sseippe pue aureu

24) Buteeq jou Bulpiosei

esodind yons 10} ssassod 10

> an nage “128 03 jnjpmey

: punos yons

“an asodind yons 10; ssas ‘00sz$ %

-8od 10 ‘UOI}NQI23zSIp 10 a[es dn jo aul & 10/pue iwak

10} 18}}0 ‘mouy 07 spunosds auo uey} azoul jou Bul

ajqeuosee yztm 10 ‘AjBul Jeqe| sadoadun 10 Burjjes

-sOUY OF [NZME[UN ‘ oUIES 404 “000'S$ Uey) e10w (Burjeqe|

19s 07 Juez! YIM Spunos ou jo aul & 10/pus sivek | sadosdun pus Surjjes)

pepioses ‘12UMO ayy JO | eAlj UBY) a10Ul 40U 18eK GUO | JOUBOWIEpSIW VY SFB\D :

quesuod ay} JNOYIA azeor/d uty} s8aj JOU 10) JUeWUO (Butanjoe;nuew) sss a's

-np ABurmouy 07 jnjmequy | -studu—Suunjqoejnuew 104 Auojeg 9 PID OL6I ‘I Aine SVSNVY

“spunos (po

JO 201aj8U82) ay} JO sSazppe = aardey

pu aweu ey) Buieaq yo wed aq i'M)

.Ou sBu1ps09ei ayNqliysIp 30 ‘zeeX auo uBYy) a10U JOU SLEI JO sme]

1128 AjBurmouy 07 [Njmey 40} uawUOM dul 10/pue 60E ail) e18Ueg

-UN PUT BAOGE oy} SE BUIES /OOSS WEY) a10UI you jo aul JOUBIWEpPSIW SL6I ‘T Aine VMOI

“quew

“‘quesuod $,40UMO 84} yNO | -uOsIduUN sIBaA (CI-| 10/pue

Yim peiajsues aie spunos 000'S$ 07 dn auty—ssuasjo Landeyd

as0ym Bulpi0de ® [18700 quenbasqng ‘juawuosud LI-SE

20 agnqiysip ‘aanjoejnuew -uit avaK | 07 dn 10/pue 161 Ol

AjSuymouy 07 [njmeyuy) 000°Z$ 07 dn asuajjo ys] | Auojeg/sousowepny vL6l ‘t Aine VNVIGNI

(-7@998{ 10 12009 aps

INO pus jaqe| ay) UO aoe/d

queurwmiold & uo 1aULOjied

ay} JO ewreu ay) pue 121n3

-DEJNUSU oY} JO SBaIPpe pus

@wieu jenjzoe ay} apracid jou

Op Yyotym sBu1ps0dai 28043)

SBuipsodes punos patjijuapr “sBulpioce. payesd

“UN Ul [FOP a81M194}0 10 | [28 JO UOHVONIysep pus UOF

‘qanqoeyNueU 07] 1OUReWAP | -B>SIJUOD SYQUOU xIS VEY)

Wo aanqoejnuew Yyons 40; | azow jou 10) yueWUOBdUI!

juewdinbe ajqepreae ayeul 10 10/pue OOS$ UFYI a0w

qa 10 Bulp109ei 19;88W ay) you jo aul J—iouBawap

JO 22UMO ay JO yUasUOD ayy | -SIWy ‘SBUIPI09a1 pazeaid jo ZR

yNoyym paonposda: sBul UO!}INIySEP PUT UO!}EIS) WIS “49 ‘Ill BE

-PsODai a[ 8S 10} a8tz4aApe 10 -U0g “uewuosudul siv—ak pue 8 P L-9I

@{¥S 10) 40};0 ‘[Ja8 ‘aanjoejN £-1 20/pue OOO'OLS UY | sOUBZWEpSIW Gf SSBID VIG “APY ‘Ill BE

-uew AjBurmouy 07 Auojeg | asow you jo aul y—Auojeg /Auojag b #e1D SLEL ‘PI sNIny SIONITII

“dnoaZ 10 ystqie penqoe

a4) JO aureU ay) pue 401m)

-DBjNuBW ay} JO STIIppe ‘uon

pue eureu ay) Bulseeq jou -2NI}Sep PU UOIZBISI;UOD

Burpsodes & 1]25 07 [NJMejUN | 07 Je[qns are Wey) exeU

os|y ‘Buipsodsas punos yons | 07 pasn yuauidinba ey) pue

Aue [jas 10 ‘ayes 10) ssassod | sajoiq28 BuiButzzut [ye UOrTIp

40 185J0 ‘astqiaape ‘mouy “peu, ‘syjuoU xIs 07 dn

0} spunos ajqeuoseas yyIM 10} Juewuosudul 10/pur

10 ‘AjBulmouy 07 [Ny MeTUN 000'I$ UBYI az0W jou jo epod FMoj

@UIES [[28 07 JUaIUI ay) YT aulj—souvowaps yw ‘S804 ,, Sa

Spunos pepiodai ‘juasuod p 0) dn 10); juawuosiud JOUBaWapPs! OL sideyD

$,12UMO BY} INOYM 49j;sUeI) “uit 40/pue OOO'OTS Vey /(aanqoejnuey) £0+ €H

Aurmouy 07 [NymeyUy | asoUl yOu jo aul gy—Auojag Auoled OL6I ‘Tt Aine OHVGI

aunjoejnuew 2184)

20} ayqeyeae yuawidinba

yew 0} 10 SBulpi0de1 yons

astysaape 10 [jas AjBurmouy

07 |NjMeIUL, “WUasUOD

$,42U MO 84} INOUPM Paiiay

-SUB1} a8 SpUNOs as0ym Bul SL6I JO Smey

-ps0da1 punos e@ j1j01d 10); 1g Vy

aap Nuew OF [NjpmeyUs) JOUBaWIOpSIW SL6I ‘el Aew IIVMVH

“SpuUNOs ay} JO 104aj;sUBI)

24) JO Ssauppe pur aweu

ay} 48aq JOU S2OP YoIym “saeak aa1u)

10/pue jUasUOD $,12UMO uty) aiow 10 au0 ueY)

ay) NOY pasajsuesy $8a| JOU 40) JueWUOsId

aie spunos asoym Suips0dai -wi 40/pue 900 OOTS UEW

® af@s 10] 49jj0 410 |Ia5 a10U JOU JO aul J—asuajjO eRe66-9Z

‘@INQUIsIP aanjoejnuew PUZ “000'SZS VEY? a10w apog 49

AjBuimouy 07 [NymejUl) JOU JO Gul 4—28U9jjO 35] Auojed SL6I ‘RZ Asenageg vioudgo

SaOVUFIAOD 40 AdODS G4aSOdWI SAIL TVNGd | ASN944O0 40 AdAL | SLVG FAILIOGAAG aLVLS

iouBawapsiW yuewuosud see serdeyp

-un 18a | 10/pue 000'SS SL6I JO Sar] S¥-9l "447 TP-OT

07 dn su0znqizysip pur Auojeag Aq papusuls se ‘VSWN VOr

‘aaoge ay) se awieg | suainjoejnuew 10) Auojag jsouRawapsly, PL6L ‘St AeW OOIX3W MAN

“quew

“quasuoo s,12umo | -uosiudull sivad 904) 07 dn

ay) yNoY A pazajsuesy | PU OOO'TS VEY) s10Ur jou

aae spunos asoym Bulps0o JO auly Y—lousawapsip

-1 8 BSIPJGAPE 10 2/83 10) “sivak Uaaes UBY) a10W!

29)j0 “|j@ ‘paanqoeynueu | OU 10) quawuosiudul pue “sajes_i0uBawep 9L/8/1 pauses

aq 0} asnes ‘aanjoejnuew 000'Z$ UBYI a10W yOU jo -s1w /ainjoejnuew— 9gI6I AV

AiSuimouy 07 [NjmejUy | aul Y—JoURewepsu YB | soUReWepsIUD YPIH 9161 ‘8 Asenuer Agsugr MIN

‘ssaippe pue aweu

§,291NJIEJNUBUW BY} 4B2q

JOU SaOp YoY 10/pue jUas

-UOD $,19UMO 34} NOUNM yous

paiajsues) eae spunos | aatjounfur 20/pue seBewep (ddng)

asoy @ Buipiodas & [18702 Asoyesuadwos 2(qan pI: V-ZSE

20 ‘a7 Nquysip ‘aanjoejnuew 10} UOIPDE JO asNed SBY ynpuog ‘VSUHN

AjBurmouy 07 pariqiyoag | a1Aep peps0de1 JO 42UMOH periqryoidg ELE ‘T 42qQuieAON BUIHSANVH MON

“sived

Ol Uey alow 20U 1804

| UBY) S89] JOU 10) Jue

-uostadul 10/pue 000'S$

uey} as0W OU JO autj—

asuajjo quanbesqng ‘sited 9

uey) esoui 20u seed | UEYD

s8a| }0u 10) JuauUOSUdU LIZ'S0%

20/put® 000'S$ UBYI sow ‘SUN

‘@aoge ayy se aueg you JO aul g—asuazjo 38] Auojed EL6t ‘I Aine VOVAGUN

“SpUNOS JO 1020j8U8I}

ay) JO ssauppe pus eureu

ay) Buuveg jou Bulpioses

® aes 10) ssasod 10 12330

‘1128 07 [njpmequN os}y “jUes

-UOD $,42U MO 34} NOY

paiejsuel) ae spunos

as0yM Sulpiocei & ares bO9T-8Z

10} ssassod 10 12330 ‘|28 nay? LO9T-8Z

‘aynquisip ‘aanjoejnuew | ydewuosiudun syzuow g 10 (pi6t) “ddng ‘su

AiSurmouy 07 ryRRJUQ | /pue OOO'TS O7 dn jo eurg souBawapsIW, PLL ‘ZI Aine VUSVUEIN

‘sauuoyied jenjoe

ay} JO aweU ay] SB [jam se

1040j8UB2} 24} JO HOAPPS

720278 pus aWeU [ENE oy)

Butseveg 10U SBuIps0I—. |/28

20 aynqiaysip ‘aanjoejn

-usw AjSurmouy 0} [Nj Me}

-UN OS] y “JUasUOD 8, 12UMO ‘quew

ayt ynoYy WA paajsuel | -vostudul syyuOW g 40/pue

aae spunos asoym Bulps09 auty OOS$ 01 ee

-@4 8 asij4aape 10 [iejaa | JUanbesqns* \ 1

‘aynquysp ‘aanjoeynuew sep O¢ 03 dn 10/pu¥ auy SOIZ ING a284eS

AjSutmouy 07 [Nj MEIUL) OOT$ 07 dn—esuajjo 781 szouRawapsy bLet ‘1 Aine IddISSISSIN

-yuas

-UOD $,J2UMO 24} INOYM ‘sazad ¢ uRy

pewajsues) ae spunos aiow you jo yuawUOsUd

as0ym SBuIpsod—ai || 25 “ual 20/pus euty 000‘ OOIS

10 aynquysip ‘aanjoejnuew | 07 dn—asuajjo quanbaesqns pre-lbs Sze VSW

AjSuimouy 07 (NJmEIUG, | OOO'SZS OF dn—asuajjo 15] Auojad ELEI ‘1 wNsny VLOS3NNIW

“spunos

ay} JO J2UMO JY} JO JUAS ‘asuajjo

-UOd ay} THOM SBulps09ea yore 10} OOLS VEY) e10W

ajesaa 20 ayes jo asodand you jo aurg—ajeg “4I0q

ay} 10) ssassod 10 ‘ajeses 10 ‘000'S$ UBYI aow

10 ajeS 10) 12jj0 “|jasea *||28 qOU JO aul & 1c ‘18aK aUO

‘astqaaape ‘aunjoejynuew uey) a0w jOU 10) Jue 0z9t GH

AjSutmouy 07 [NpMeLUL) -uostdwy]—ainjoejnuew souvaWeps!W SLEL ‘BI 4eqQuiason NVOIHOIN

“yuasUod S$, 12UMO

ay} NOYWM Passajsues) az

spunos asoym siuips0oa. ‘aeak | UBY) a20W 7OU 10) CPL 997 WIV

[198 20 aynquysip ‘aanjoejn juewuosiudust 40 000'SS SLL&aS

-uew AjBurmouy 07 /NyMe]UL) uey) aoul yOu JO aul y s0uvaWeps! ELEI ‘IE 42qQ0120 -NHOVSSVYW

“puUnNos jo 1019;8URI}

ay} JO Ssaippe jea238 pue

aureu jenjoe ay) 4eaq jou

saop yorym Surpsoded punos

Aue [18701 40 “ayNQuysip

AjBuimouy 07 [Nj MeqUN ose “quawuosiudul

SI}! pue ‘yUasUOD S,12UMO savak ¢ 03 dn 10/pue autlj

ay) NOM pasajsues) ae 0001S 07 dn—esuajjo

SPUNOS asOY4M SBuIPsOIai || a8 quanbasqng ‘yuewuosud

20 aynquysip ‘aanjoejnuew uit $4804 | 04 dn 10/pue VL9OP OVW LZ

AjBurmouy 07 [NJMEUL) 00S'Z$ 07 dn—esuajjo 1S] sousawepsiW EL6I ‘1 Aine GNVIAUVN

‘Bulpiodas punos & yons

aSIPPAPH 410 jes 105 19jjO

‘1128 AjBurmouy 07 [NjmeUy, ‘ooss

“yUasSUOD $ 42UMO 3Yy} INO uey) aszow 10u OCs UFY)

-YUtM Pasiaysuel) aie spunos S$aj JOU JO aul J—ajes 10

asoy m Buips0da4 punos Burstysapy ‘000'SS VEN)

B aanjoejnuew Ayjnjiim 210 10U QOSS UBY) S52} x0Z VSUW OL

pue AjJu:mouy 07 (Njymeyus) you jo aul g—aanjoejnuep souraWwapsipw SLEL 2@QuieAON GNIVI

IOV UAAOS 40 AdOOS QASOdWI SBILTWNGd | SSN9440 40 B4AL | BLVO SAILOGSAS aLVLS

“saysuel) yons

10) uamdinba ayquyreae ‘aeak | OF

ayew 20 Wuas 07 jnymeyuN [dn 105 quawuosiudul 10/pue

*yUasUOd $,12UMO BY} NO 000'L$ 03 dn jo autj—ayes

-yjim pauaysues) ase spunos | 10 uewiayeapy ‘suved G-f

asoym Zulpso0oei ®& aoueW 10} JUaWUOBUdUI 10/pue

-sojiad ayqnd yBnosy) |000'OIS 7 dn jo autj—esuaj on

wWyoid 10) asn 10 astjziaA -JO quanbasqns ‘suvad Z 07 662 S ON

“Pe ‘PlOs aq 07 asnes ‘|ja8 | SYJUOU g 40) quewuosudun | - sepuay®d SL6l

‘aynquysip ‘aanjoejnuew | 20/pue Q00'S$ 07 dn jo auy VNIIOUVO

AjBurmouy 07 [Nyme|UL), | —saNjDENUBW—e8U9jjO IS] souveWepsIW 9161 ‘1 Asenuer HLNOS

‘a28} apisyno sj! UO SpuNos

JO 20105882} 24) JO SSBAPpe

pue aweu jenjoe ay) Bur

-18aq JOU Bulpiosas punos ®

“MON NQLASIP 10 a[es 10, ‘S828

-sod 10 ‘10330 ‘a7NQuysIp 40

[128 07 (eBay! OsTy “‘spunos

a@S0Y} JO 184 ¥O 24} JO “saved QO] URY) a0U! JOU

quasUo? ay} INOYI!M Pella) 10} quawuostudul! 10/pue

-SuBi} Udaq aAey Spunos 000'S$ UBYRes0U 30U jo .

yorym oqo ajonue Aue | eutg—asuajjo juanbasqns (9L61 JO SME] LEZ

*UOTINQLISIP 10 a[es 10) “suvad xis UBYy) BOW saydeyd) sao1e1g

‘ssasod 10 ‘10530 ‘agNquysip you 10) Juewuocsudut apeay aandaced

‘|J@8 0) puke spunos iajsuel} 10/pue 0OO'S$ URY acm strers ‘19

AjSuimouy 0} [NpMeIUL JOU JO aulg—ssuajjo IST Auojed 9.61 ‘6 oun’ | GNV'ISI JGOHY

‘J2UMO OY} JO

“saved QO] UB a20W jou WUaSUOD 34} PNHOYTIM

uaunjoejnuew ayy JO quawuoNudun 10/pue | paredtidnp sBurps09

yO aureu anzy ay) 28aq OU | OOO'OZS UEY) s10U! JOU jo -04 PUNOS ajesajoyum

Saop YoIyA 10/pue yuas auy—esuajjo yuanbasqng | 10 aynqiysip ‘enjzo8;

-UOD $,19UMO BY} TNOYUM ‘saved § UBY) e210 OU JO nuew AjBuimouy 03

pena aie spunos quewuosidun 10 990's$ | —A 4 “Buyreyes jo

asoy m Bulps0dai ®& [18781 uBYy) as0U 30" JO aul) 10} ssassod

20 ajnquaysip ‘aanjsejnuew | —esuajjo 78] : pue SBulps09 40 jreja2 AjBuimouy 9th ‘V'Sd 81

AjSuimouy 07 |NymeRpUy, | -24 pezead Jo UONBINUOD 07—10OUBaWApSIW 1L61 ‘81 4990090 | VINVA’IASNNGd

-piodei 1aysew jeUIs0 24}

JO 12UMO ay} JO JUaSUOD

aya yNOY WM payeoydnp s

yorys Buipsooe. punos Aue

ajBS 10) aSIZABAPE 1O [18721 ‘syqUOW g UBY} e10U jou ELEL JO SMUT

40 aynquyisip ‘aanqovejnuew 10} Juewuosiudul 10/pue LbL aerdeyD

AiButmouy 07 (Nj Me|UL) 00S$ Peeoxe 07 JOU uly souBsWapsIW ELEI ‘S 2290190 NOOFYO

“sBulpiorar “aes 10) DOSS %

yons }j98 07 (njmBUy ‘plo | dn jo aurg “queuuosudur

suvak QZ UY) S8e SBUIpsOIer savak Z 10/pue 0OO'STS 6981-S98I

PUNOS ‘jUssSUOD $,12UMO 24} 07 dn—aanzoejnuew (S$z61)

INoYM aes 405 aanposd | —ssuajjo pug ‘OSS 07 dn Auolad ddng ‘s'0 1%

-o1 ABurmouy 07 [NjmeyUL, | —24NjIejNUBUL—99U9jjO 15] /jaquvewepsiy SL6I ‘I 22quierdag VWOHYV THO

1210)

-2ejNueW ay} JO ssaappe

pue aweu ay) pue s7siq8

ayy JO auzeu ay) Buleaq “OSL$ j°

yOu Bulps0dai puNos Be {2s out) WNW xew & 10/pue f

10 aiNjoujNueW OF [Nj me} quewuosudun skep 06 s

-UN OS}y “‘Bulpsodai & yons uey) asow jou suorsiaoid

[128 0} 42jj0 10 asiyaaape Burjaqe| JO UONVEIOIA 10

‘12s AjBurmouy 01 [Ny mejuN uon Ap pezuoyjne

‘Buypsora. 7#Y) JO 22UMO | -UN JO FS ‘OOO'TS JO PUY)

ay} JO JUasUOD ay} NOY winuwixew & 20/pue juow

Surpsodea punos Aue ayes | -uosidui syyuow xs urY) cs eeel

40} a7zeajdnp 07 (njmeyULy) aiow jOU—ainjzoepnuep sJOURIWaps! W 9L6I ‘Ol Aew 940

‘paren

-uits Ajaarndacep Bu.piodei

Aue 127) 03 asodind yum

ssassod 10 1233M 0} [NjMeTUN

osiy ,, ede) Burpsooas

10 ‘piooes ydeaZouoyd “00S'Z$ URI a10W OU jo

Aue Buronposdas * ** auly & pue suead aatj uly) ZE “16S

(Aj)Buimouy,, 07 [NJmejUy | Sse] JOU 20; yUsWUOSIadWIT Aucjeg | PLEI ‘1 Azenuer OIHO

JaanpENuew ayy jo awueu

ana} ay} Aurea jou sur

“PAodad |j78 40 ByNQIAySIp

‘eunpoVpnueUW OF [Nj MeyUL)

orssitued }NOYWM $7489

-UOD Al] P10da2 07 10 SBUI V9S apy

-p10Ie1 PUNOS JO SUOI}ED Sa7NIBIG [Bsauer)

-dnp pezuoy neun [jas ‘syquow bl saerdey

10 ayNqizysip ‘aanjoe;nuew 9 07 dn jo yuewuosudut YNITOUVD

AjBurmouy 09 [NJMEYUL, | 20/pue OOSE 07 dn jo eulg souBsWApSIW GL6L ‘| Ascnuee HLUON

“ssoappe pus

awieu s iaanjoejnueUw ayy

yNoYyUM sBulpsodes punos

[]#8 20 aanqoejnuew O47

[eBajj! Osje ‘yUasUoD Ss, 492UMO

a4) INOYINM pesajsues}

aue Spunos asoym Suipsos uvak auo OF 196-09

-a2 & [ja8 40 aanjoeynuew | dn jo yueuuosudul 10/pue Tap

Aju mouy 07 [NJMEIUL) | OOLS UEY) as0 JOU jo aul g sOULIWIOPH YY L9GI “| 4equierdag WHOA MAN

3OVYFIAOD 40 3dODS QISOdWI SAIL IVNGd | 9SN3440 40 BdAL | ALVO BALLOAAAS ALV.LS

“‘pepsooeai

Aypnjmeyun useq aaey

Aay? yey) eBpajmouy ey)

Yum SBuIpsodad YONS aes

“syjuoWw xIs

ueYy} a20UW OU 10) JUaUI

-uosiuudull 40/pue OOOIS

40} 49}JO 10 [95 “astj404 0008S “ey? a10U! yOu jo

-pe OF [Njmejun ‘ewes jjas-| aulj—esuajjo puz SyuoW

0} WUeqUI 24) YIM SpuNos | XIs UBY} a10U JOU 40) JUS

Paeps0dei ‘jUIsUOD $,192UMO uosidun 10/pue 0D0Z$

ay? NOY ‘1ajsuesy uey) a20ul yOu jo aulj— LOZ £+6

AjSuimouy 07 [Nymequl), | asuazjo 7ST : BulaNjoesnuEW souRawepsiW 9L6I “> eunr NISNOOSIM

“dnoad Yo ystyae penjoe

ay) JO aweU ay) pus sean

2ejNuBW ay} JO ssaappe

pue awieu ay) Bulzeeq jou

Surpsosea & [9 07 [NJMETUN

os|y ‘“Buipsode4 punos yons

Aue [j@8 40 ‘ayes 10) ssassod

10 4ajJO ‘astzsaape ‘mouy

0} spunosd ajqeuoseas YH | qmasen we

40 ‘AjBurmouy 07 [Nj MeUN wey?

‘ @uses [Jas 07 JUaTU! ay) YIM -dinbs ay) pue sBuipioo 9L/ZL/E peaoadde

SpUNOS paps0rai ‘yUasUOD -4 pazoYy NeUN jo uot} O22 ING e8Ueg

iaumo ay) NOY 48jsUey -2N1}S8P PUB UOIZBISIJUOD VINIDUIA

A[Buimouy 07 [Nj METUL pue 000'TS 07 dn jo eur squsewaps! 9L6I ‘ZI eunr LSan

42UMO ay} JO JUasSUOD JNO

-Yitm pesiejsues] aae spunos 4 ‘sade) jo uo

asoym Buipi0dal & [18 a1 “eamjuoo snjd jyuewuosiid 0b0'SZ-020 SZ

20 agnquysip ‘aanjoejynuew -ut avaX | 07 dn 10/pue MOU EI

AjBurmouy 07 [NJMEIUL | OOO'IS Pee2xe 07 JOU oul souvawapsiW PL6I ‘Sz Aine NOLONIHSVM

“42am

-UynueW ay} jo eueU

24) 48aq }0U saOP 10/pue

4@UMO ay} JO JUaSUOD NO

“Yim peaejsues) a1 spunos

asoym Suipsocai & [18791 meek 1 07 Obl 1b

40 agNquysip ‘aanjoejnuew dn juawuosudun 10/pue ‘BA JO @POD 16S

ABuimouy 01 (ny meyUy) 00S$ peeoxa 07 you aul s0URaWAPSIW ZL6t ‘1 Aine VINIDUIA

wang EL6L JO PY 89H

sues} Yons 10) yuewdinba ‘syquow o -I8ag Bulpsooey

ajqepeae axeu 10 yuas | 07 dn yuawuosudul 40]pue pezuoyineuy)

0} SB [jam SB ‘aaOge se aWES 66Z$ P2e2Xxe 07 JOU uly JOUTOWIPTW £1618 Aw HVLn

“quasuo) $,42U MO “‘savak g uey

ay) NOYWM pessajsues) as0W OU 10) JuawUOsUd

aie spunos asoym Buips0o -uit 40/pue QO0'SZ$ UEY Z106 “VV WS

-@4 PUNOS & ajes 10) 12jj0 a10W JOU JO aulj—asUajjO ‘AMD ‘uuy

40 []28 Oy ‘a[es 10) aonposd PUuz ‘000'Z$ UeYy) as0W #,uoulaA

-aa ApBuimouy 07 [NjMeE|UL) JOU JO autj—asuasjo WS] | Auoje4/s0UsowapsI)y — 1L61 ‘oe wndny SVX@EL

‘saved OL

aaanjoeyn | uey) asouw sou ‘saved ¢ URYD “42UM0

-uBW JO aweU ay) 1eaq JOU $8a| you jo yuewUOsIdUu ay} JO JuasUOD ay)

MOP 414M 10/puk “yUasUOD | 10/pUue OOO OOIS UY) sow yNoy Im pazeotdnp

$,J2UMO ay} JNOYIIM |}OU JO autj—esUajJjJO JUaNbas sZu!psode2 punos

peifejsues) aze spunos |-qng ‘suvad ¢ UY) a10W JOU | = ajesajoym 40 a4NGIy

gs0ym sBuipiodes aouew | seed | UY) $88; JOU JO yUaW | SIP ‘auNnjOB;NUBU OF O0SZb-6E

-sojiad ayqnd ySnosy) | -uosadua 20/pue O00'SZS | —AUvojeg “‘Burjeyas jo may) PHZE-6E

qwyoad 10) asn 20 [8,88 uey) az0W 7OU JO aul) asodind 10) ssessod apog

‘ainquisip ‘aanjoeynuew | —ssuazjo 3s] : pue sBurps0o 40 [1@}01 AjBuimouy ‘uuy ‘uuay ZL

AjBurmouy 07 |NymeyUy, | -24 payead jo UOIVBIsIJUOD 0} 4ouBewaps!W 161 ‘I Aine aaSSaNNAL

“‘aoueunojied

ayqnd ydnosyy youd

10} SBuIpi0das Yyons asn

07 [NjmzUN os}y “(shsre

ay) Jo (s)aweu ayy pue

SpUNos ay} [0 s01a;sUBIy

ay) JO Ssauppe pue aweu

ay} 48aq JOU seOp YoI4ym “quewuosudut

10/pue JUasUOD 5, 42UMO savak ¢ UBY} a10U! jOU 10

ay) INOYNM Pessezsues] | /puUe OOO'IS WEY) ss0U! jou verer

aut spinos asoym Burpsoo | jo auly B—suayjo [jy “yuew : ‘ayn me] payiduiog

~@4 & B/S 10) 10} jO 40 |/ 95 -uosiudus syyuow g ueYy -Quysp 40 amnqo"jN ‘ase

‘aynquysip ‘aanjoejnuew | aszoui jou 10/pue QOGS UeY? | -uBUs 07 —AUopeg/1189 VLOXVG

AjBurmouy 07 [NJMEUL, | AOU! JOU JO GUIj}—s9/1C}0Y | -24 OFAOUBIWIEpSIWy SL6I ‘“t Aine HLNOS

DV UFAOD AO AdODS G3SOdWI SAILTVN@d | BSN9440 40 BdAL | BLVO GAILOGAAS aLVLs

TATE

EFFECTIVE DATE

TYPE OF OFFENSE

PENALTIES IMPOSED

Apiil, 1977

SCOPE OF COVERAGE

ontana

ec 85-601 et seq

evised code of

Montana

(Chap 367, Acts

of 1977)

April 14, 1977

Felony (manufacture) /

Misdemeanor (sale)

Imprisonment for up to

ten years for manufac-

turers; a fine of up to

$500 and/or imprisonment

for up to six months for

sellers. Also confisca-

tion of sound recordings

manufactured in violation

of this section and the

equipment used to make

then.

Unlawful to knowingly manu-

facture: 1. recordings whose

sounds are transferred without

the owner's consent. 2. re-

cordings of performances, live

or broadcast, without the per-

former's consent. Unlawful to

sell such recordings or to sell

recordings without the name and

address of the manufacturer and

name of the performing artist(s)

enate Bill

fee Dakota

2366 (1977)

ONNECTICUT

en. Stat. Ann.

3-142 b,c,d

July 1, 1977

October 11

1994

Felony (manufacture) /

Misdemeanor (sale)

Misdemeanor

Felony (Class D)

Imprisonment for up to

five years and/or a fine

of up to $5000 for manu-

facturers; imprisonment

for up to 30 days arid/or

a fine of up to $500 for

sellers. Also confisca-

tion of sound recordings

manufactured in violation

of this section and the

equipment used to make

then.

Fine of not more than

$1,000 and/or imprison-

ment for not more than

one year. Subsequent

offense--Fines of up to

$2,000 and/or not more

than one year imprison-

ment.

Same as above

Unlawful to knowingly man-

ufacture, distribute, sell

or advertise for sale a

| recording whose sounds

have been transferred wi

out the owner's consent.

Unlawful to rent or make

available equipment for

such transfers, Also un-

lawful to ynautng’ sell

a recording not Sa

the name and address o

the manufacturer,

TATE

11SSOURI

B 92

HAMPSHIRE August 30, 1977

~H, Rev.

St.

t. Ann,

ect.

352-A: 1

EFFECTIVE DATE TYPE OF OFFENSE

September 15, 1977 Felony/Misdemeanor

Felony(for manu-

facture)

Misdemeanor(for

sale)

PENALTIES IMPOSED

First Offense -- fine

of not more than $1,000

and/or imprisonment for

up to six months, 2nd

offense(manufacture

only)imprisonment for

not more than two nor

less than five years

Imprisonment for up

to seven years and/or

a fine of up to $2,000

for manufacturers;

imprisonment for up to

one year and/or a fine

of up to $1,000 for

sellers. Also confis-

cation of sound recor-

dings manufactured in

violation of this sec-

tion and the equipment |

used to make them,

SCOPE OF COVERAGE

Unlawful to knowingly

transfer, without the

owner's consent, recorded

sounds with the intent to

sell same; unlawful to

knowingly or with reason-

able grounds to know, ad-

vertise, offer or possess

for sale, or sell any

such sound recording.

Also unlawful to sell a

recording not bearing the

name and address of the

manufacturer and the name

of the actual artist or

group.

Unlawful to knowingly

manufacture: 1. recor-

dings whose sounds are

transferred without the

owner's consent,

2. recordings of perfor-

mances, live or broadcast,

without the performers’

consent. Unlawful to sell

such recordings or to sell

recordings without the

name and address of the

manufacturer and name of

the performing artist(s),

LORIDA

.S. 543,041

EFFECTIVE DATE

July 1, 1977

TYPE OF OFFENSE

Felony/Misdemeanor

PENALTIES IMPOSED

Imprisonment for up to

five years and/or fine

of up to $5,000 for

manufacturers; imprison-

ment for up to 60 days

and/or a fine of up to

$500 for sellers. Also

confiscation of sown

recordings manufactured

in violation of this

section and the equip

ment used to make them.

' manufacture: .

dings whose sounes are

SCOPE OF COVE.

Unlawful to krewingly

1. Recor-

transferred withcuc the

owner's consent. 2. Re-

cordings of performances

live or broadcast , with-

out the performer's

consent. Unlawful to

sell such recordings or

to sell recordings

without the name and

address of the manufac-

turer and name of the

performing artist(s).

EXHIBIT 2.

Court Decisions Proscribing Record and

Tape Piracy.

EXHIBIT 2.

Court Decisions Proscribing Record and

Tape Piracy.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973).

CALIFORNIA

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Erickson, 2 Cal. App. 3d 526,

82 Cal. Rptr. 798 (1969), cert. denied, 398 US.

U.S. 960 (1970).

ILLINOIS

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Spies, 130 Ill. App. 2d 429,

264 N.E.2d 874 (1970).

MARYLAND

Gai Audio of New York, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting

System, Inc., 27 Md. App. 172, 340 A.2d 736

(1975).

MICHIGAN

Rare Earth Corp. v. Lear Jet Corp. (Michigan Circuit

Court No. 71-75812, July 1, 1971).

A & M Records, Inc. v. M.V.C. Distrib. Corp. (US.

D.C., E.D. Mich., No. 4-72,136, May 22, 1975),

aff'd, No. 76-1843-44 (6th Cir. April 7, 1978).

MINNESOTA

CBS Records v. Johnson (D. Minn. No. 4-71 CIV. 225

and No. 4-71 CIV. 436, June 20, 1972).

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Schaak Electronics, Inc. (Min-

nesota District Court No. 671559, July 21, 1971).

MISSOURI

National Broadcasting Co. v. Nance, 506 S.W.2d 483

(Mo. App. 1974).

NEW JERSEY

Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Melody Record-

ings, Inc., 134 N.J. Super. 368, 341 A.2d 348 (App.

Div. 1975).

NEW YORK

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Greatest Records, Inc., 43

Misc. 2d 878, 252 N.Y.S.2d 553 (Sup. Ct. 1964).

RCA v. Premier Albums, Inc., 19 App. Div. 2d 62,

240 N.Y.S.2d 995 (1963).

Gieseking v. Urania Records, Inc., 17 Misc. 2d 1034,

155 N.Y.S.2d 171 (Sup. Ct. 1956).

NORTH CAROLINA

Liberty/UA, Inc. v. Eastern Tape Corp., 11 N.C. App.

20, 180 S.E.2d 414, appeal dismissed and cert.

denied, 278 N.C. 702, 181 S.E.2d 600 (1971).

United Artists Records, Inc. v. Eastern Tape Corp.,

19 N.C. App. 207, 198 S.E.2d 452 (1973).

OREGON

Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. Elliott, (Oregon Cir. Ct.

No. 378-969, July 11, 1972).

SOUTH CAROLINA

CBS Inc. v. Custom Recording Co., 258 S.C. 465, 189

S.E.2d 305, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1007 (1972).

WISCONSIN

Mercury Record Productions, Inc. v. Economic Con-

sultants, Inc., 64 Wis. 2d 163, 218 N.W.2d 705

(1974), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 420 US.

914 (1975).

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Mercury Records Corp., 221

F.2d 657 (2d Cir. 1955).

unilints

U.S. CIRCUIT COURT, NEW YORK

Fonotipia, Ltd. v. Bradley, 171 F. 951 (C.C.E.D.N.Y.

1909).

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH CIRCUIT

A & M Records, Inc. v. M.V.C. Distrib. Corp., No.

4-72,136 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 1975), affd, No.

76-1843-44 (6th Cir. April 7, 1978).

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT

Tape Industries Association of America v. Younger, 316

F. Supp. 340 (C.D. Cal. 1970), appeal dismissed,

401 U.S. 902 (1971), affd per curiam. No. 26,628

(9th Cir. Oct. 1, 1973).

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, TENTH CIRCUIT

Tape Head Co. v. RCA Corp., 452 F.2d 816, 820

(10th Cir. 1971).

Warner Bros. Records, Inc. v. R.A. Ridges Dist. Co.,

475 F.2d 262 (10th Cir. 1973).

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NEW YORK

Aeolian Co. v. Royal Music Roll Co., 196 F. 926

(W.D.N.Y. 1912).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

FTC v. Orient Music Roll Co., 2 FTC 176 (1919).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.